English Snarks Misfounded?
The comments of a recent post about English suffering from AIM and text messaging got me thinking... The English language doesn't suffer by techno-shorthand at all; it becomes improved by it. Language is organic, and as societal needs require lingual evolution, language can adapt.
That's why I usually stay silent when people on this blog bitch about incorrect grammar (my need for conformity and acceptance outweigh my desire to fight). What makes grammar correct? Unlike other standard setting bodies (IEEE, ICANN, ISO and SAE come to mind), English doesn't have a group of people that decide right or wrong. Instead, something becomes "right" when the majority of the English-speaking society decides it's right.
The process usually goes like this:
That's why I usually stay silent when people on this blog bitch about incorrect grammar (my need for conformity and acceptance outweigh my desire to fight). What makes grammar correct? Unlike other standard setting bodies (IEEE, ICANN, ISO and SAE come to mind), English doesn't have a group of people that decide right or wrong. Instead, something becomes "right" when the majority of the English-speaking society decides it's right.
The process usually goes like this:
- A guy mispronounces a word while drunk at a party. His designated driver buddy hears it and tucks it away in his memory.
- The buddy uses it accidentally in front of a group of friends at the gym.
- The friends in turn use it, and eventually someone posts it in their facebook status (it has graduated to "obscure localized slang" at this point).
- Someone creates a really popular facebook group, or starts an internet meme involving the word (it has now just become "regular slang").
- Celebrities around the world are using the word. 50 Cent dropped the term in his new song. People playing XBOX Live scream it at each other. Axe Body Spray uses it in commercials (it has now become "accepted slang").
- The word gets uncool... everyone knows what it means, but no one uses it anymore (the term is now "old slang").
- A really square, white, old, male politician uses the term (he's probably Republican) when railing against a new piece of progressive legislation. 98% of the population chuckles to themselves because of how "2006" the term is. The other 2% of the population (the ones with all the money) realize that a new word has been invented right under their noses; they panic and make every attempt possible to use the word, lest they be the last ones to use it. Jack Donaghy claims to have invented it. The pope uses it in his "bless the world, but curse abortion" New Years prayer.
Labels: Grammar Snarks
posted by Toney at 1:04 PM
31 Comments:
Undoubtedly words and phrases change over time, and undoubtedly that's a good thing. If our language wasn't malleable, we literally would not be able to talk about the internet.
But respectfully, Toney, I think a blanket assertion of harmlessness is a mistake. The language does suffer when words and phrases that have precise and special meanings are diluted.
Take "alibi." An alibi, strictly speaking, is a special kind of excuse; it is the excuse that the accused was physically in another place. But in colloquial speech, alibi has come to mean almost any kind of excuse. Nowadays, if we want to say "It couldn't have been me because was in another place," we have to make the whole sentence. We can't just say, "I have an alibi." Language, which is measured by our ability to communicate, has suffered.
"Question begging" is another example. Strictly speaking, question begging occurs when someone tries to persuade you of something, but frames the question in a way that makes their version a foregone conclusion without actually supporting it. But in colloquial speech, "question begging" has come to mean something like "raises the question." Now, when we want to say that an argument begs the question, we have to say "the argument assumes its conclusion without supporting it, and therefore is invalid." Again, language, as measured by our ability to communicate, has suffered.
There is a second and more compelling reason to resist the obfuscating of our language, however. A deeper, more precise understanding of words and phrases enriches our lives. "Azure" doesn't just mean "blue," it means a special kind of blue that we are better off for appreciating, and that we are better, richer people for sharing with others. Sure, we can get the point across by saying "blue," but (I submit) the quality of our lives and our experience is greater when we dwell in its complexity, not when we brush it over with catchall terms. Likewise, a "chortle" is a special kind of laugh. We could get the point across by saying "laugh," but sometimes "chortle" is the right word, and I belive something would be lost if it lost its sense and meaning.
By taking care to use those words like "chortle" and "azure" properly, we take care of our language, and when we take care of our language, we take take care of our cultural and social experiences. These aren't byzantine and draconian rules based on dated traditions. They're clues to the subtlety and intricacy of human experience. That's why I believe they shouldn't be lightly abandoned.
IMHO.
PS: "Organic."
;)
You're right Toney. We should all revert back to the days before Noah Webster when everybodie spelt wordes everie witch waye. As an aside, lingual evolution is a good thing and an inherent part of any language. But it's a big stretch to attach the evolution label to ignorance. So, when someone says, "I could care less" is that an improvement of the English language or just an idiot speaking? Sounds like the latter.
I'm going to have to marklar with marklar on this marklar. But if marklar keeps marklaring, it could marklar to quite a marklar marklar. That could get pretty marklar. Could you marklar? It would be total marklar.
But you're missing the point. The reason "alibi" has to come to mean something different is because that's what society demanded. There are plenty of instances where there isn't an exact word for something, and as a result you have to give an entire sentence to achieve the description you want. For instance, there is no word for "Patrick has a dated view of the English language". But if this point were important enough to demand conveyance with a single word, that word would have been created. For instance, "Patrify". I'll give it a go, and see if I can get some traction. Likely it won't catch on, but that is up to English-speakers, and not select few of us.
The problem with your argument is that you can't even USE English without being somewhat hypocritical. For instance "malleable" originally meant "capable of being shaped by hammering". But you used it to mean "adaptable". Both are perfectly acceptable, and nothing is lost in the process. You can still use "alibi" to refer to being in a different place... nothing is holding you back. Context and setting of word usage sees to it.
Anyway, if you're the type of person that can't look past tradition, even in the face of a larger societal demand or a logical progressive evolution (the "organic" bit may out one such person), then likely this won't reach you. But that's ok... you can keep fighting your war, and we'll have something to chortle about. Until we're azure in the face :)
Caley, you reminded me of this.
*sigh*
Toney, I'm not making the factual claim that language doesn't change in response to users' needs, or a normative claim that those changes are undesirable. I'm making the ethical claim that some traditions are worth preserving.
Exactly. Additional meaning for malleable? Fine. Using the non-word "flammable" to mean inflammable because people are too stupid to realize that inflammable means capable of catching fire? Not ok.[FN 1]
[FN 1] "Inflammable means flammable? What a country." -- Dr. Nick Riveria
Eh, as you noted, that's just IYHO. My claims is that it isn't up to a select few to determine what is worth protecting, but rather up to the collective English-speaking population.
And you make a great point Armen, though a slightly incorrect one. "Flammable" has gone beyond slang into accepted usage; refusing to recognize it as a word doesn't make it any less so, despite its origins in stupidity (a word originally meaning "numb" or "stunned"). That ship has sailed, my friend.
Actually, Armen, they are different, but the difference makes your comment even funnier. Flammable substances ignite at a higher temperature than inflammable ones, e.g., gasoline is inflammable, paper is flammable.
How it came to be that inflammable objects burn more easily than flammable ones, I do not know.
Toney, that Buffalo link provided me way too much entertainment. I think that's a sign I've spent too much time writing this paper. Damn writing requirement.
Patrick, I had heard that the difference between "flammable" and "inflammable" was explained by a difference in potential energy, and not igniting temperature... did my physics education fail me?
I donno, Toney, but that's what they tell us in firefighter training.
Patrick, flammable is not a word. They just began using it on highly combustible substances just so retards like Toney wouldn't smoke on an oil tanker by mistakenly thinking the "in" preceding flammable negates it. Maybe this ship has sailed, but I will never dignify ignorance of language. Never. And with the change in English curricula, we are shifting more and more away from teaching students grammar and good writing. Lucky for me, I had English teachers from the 60s who continued to teach these subjects. But I worry about others. I've read way too many papers with 200 word sentences, the passive voice, and all sorts of other horrors to just shrug off linguistic laziness. Instead of letting idiots define language, I prefer to fight the good fight (losing fight, but a good fight nonetheless).
Just so I'm clear, I'm jabbing at Toney, not really calling him retarded. Poor writing on my part. :)
Well, hazimat placards on the back of tanker trucks distinguish between contents that are flammable and inflammable, and that's what I was basing it on.
Armen - EXACTLY. You were able to get your point across, despite the "bad writing". "Retard" is a great example of how the evolution of English has enabled that. Flammable is another great example. And Patrick, don't be afraid to stick it to Armen once in a while.
Armen, on an aside, I would argue that it was quite unlucky for you to get English teachers from the 60's. But so long as you can see that it's a losing fight, I'm content to just sit back and watch.
Every time I draft something at work, I'm tempted to send my English teachers a gift basket for teaching me to write well. Every time I see an opposing brief use three passive constructs in a single sentence, I want to buy my teachers a new car. Every time I hear someone say "PIN number" I want to slit my wrists.
Okay, last remark and I'm bowing out.
I think "retard" is a good example of why we DO need to preserve historical meanings. The word, in many contexts, is quite offensive. It's shorthand slang for mentally disabled, and it gets its traction by comparing the butt of a joke to a disabled person. It's not a word you can say in mixed company BECAUSE of its historical baggage. But if we only looked to today's usage of the term, we wouldn't be able to see that history and baggage, and we would be tempted use the word anytime we might mean "silly." It would hurt and offend many people. I just don't see how you can advance the argument that it would be okay to do that, because the colloquial use of "retard" has changed.
I admit, my ears wanted to vomit when my 10th grade history teacher made us write "C.B. by Toney Jacobson" at the bottom of the person's quiz that we were correcting.
Also, add to the list of completely pointless: diagramming sentences.
English standard setting body: the OED.
Both sides seem to make good points. I think this is one of those situations where the actual usage must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If you take Toney's argument to its logical extreme, you see ridiculous results (e.g., Caley's first post). On the other hand, the unrelenting defense of "proper english" results in people arguing that "inflammable" better captures the meaning than "flammable" (see Armen's second post). While that may have once made sense, it now seems ridiculous (unless you were privileged enough to learn the "proper" meaning). Instead, the proposed revision must be evaluated for logical coherence with other English words.
Who should do the evaluating? I think that comes down to the medium. If you are writing for the court, clearly go with the long-accepted meaning as determined by OED. On the other hand, if you are writing to change word meaning (perhaps in a blog), then test out your new definition. If your idea has merit, people will latch onto it. Otherwise, Patrick will write a grammar snark post about you. ;)
Yes, but the very mission of the OED is to exhaustively catalogue how words are actually used and how their definitions and usages have changed over time. It's a gatekeeper of sorts, but it attempts to record changes in the usage of words, not prevent them.
You'd love the The Devil's Dictionary's definition of "lexicographer." So would Toney. So do I.
If anything, the OED is actually the antithesis of traditionalist efforts, as it immortalizes "incorrect usage" of words, catalogues their dilution, and immortalizes the progress (or regress, depending on what side of the fence you find yourself on) of the English language. The OED is as effective a regulator as Bud Selig, or Henry Paulson.
And Armen's correct (see 3:13).
The OED has only released two editions - 1928 and 1989. The next edition is planned for 2037. It's hardly a work constantly in flux. When definitions are updated, a team of scholars reviews the usage of the word by looking at all manner of publications and then makes a call. It may not be a gatekeeper, but that's not what we want. Language will change with the culture.
English is a beautiful language.It adapts itself to every thing.From SMS to online chatting,it is easy form a new short pharse in english than any other language.I don't think english snarks are misfounded
At least we're in tune with the concerns of the common American here at Berkeley...
I feel like diagramming sentences helped me understand how the English language works - why is it useless? I was in elementary school in the early 80's when I learned it - is it still used as a teaching method?
In general, language should be formed by usage but we should attempt to channel its evolution in ways that diversify words and expressions--not limit them--AND promote coherence throughout the language. Consequently, words like "blog" are desirable. Words like "flammable" are not. "Inflammable" is a coherent word because it jives with the verb for starting a fire: to inflame.
Finally, all disputes should be resolved via the Omnificent English Dictionary in Limerick Form: http://www.oedilf.com/db/Lim.php
Post a Comment
<< Home