Posted on 01/10/2005 10:26:26 PM PST by nickcarraway
One of the smaller, but no less bloody skirmishes in the Culture War is being waged on the linguistic front. For those new to the field there are essentially two camps: one made up of linguists, lexicographers, academics or language liberals; the other of conservatives or prescriptivists, the so-called "linguistic luddites." The conservative's anguish over the decline of the English language, the linguists charge, is no different than his distress over the decline of culture in general. This "whining," writes linguist Alan Pagliere, is a mix of nostalgia, self-righteousness, and ignorance of the reality of the laws governing and of the myriad variables involved in language change.
Indeed, the battle cry of the language liberal might be, "Languages change. Get over it." Most linguists judge that language change is neither good nor bad, and, anyway, resistance is futile. Languages, like hemlines, will change whether we want them to or not. This indifference to standards is reflected in the latest editions of our popular dictionaries in which words that are commonly misspelled (alright) or misused (disinterested) have been given the lexicographer's stamp of approval.
Yet despite all this talk of transformation the mother tongue has gone remarkably unchanged since the King James Version of the Bible began to stabilize the language in the mid-seventeenth century. Words come and go, yes, but a letter written 367 years ago by John Milton to Benedetto Bonomatthai reads much like one composed by a good writer today:
I am inclined to believe that when the language in common use in any country becomes irregular and depraved, it is followed by their ruin or their degradation.
Now note the dissimilarity between the writing of Chaucer and Shakespeare after a mere 225 years.
Chaucer: Whanne that April with his shoures sote
The droughte of March hath perced to the rote.
Shakespeare: Weary with toil, I haste me to my bed,
The dear repose for limbs with travel tired;
Often there is good reason to be skeptical of change, particularly when it comes about out of laziness and the dumbing-down of grammar rules. Again, compare Fowler's inflexible 1926 Dictionary of Modern English Usage to current grammars like Woe is I, in which rules that are troublesome or too difficult to remember are pronounced outdated or dead. (Rats, if I had known this was possible in my college days I would have pronounced Algebra outdated and dead and gotten on with my binge drinking.)
What the conservative sees as threats to the mother tongue are dismissed by the linguist as the natural progression of language, and nature trumps civilization (here represented by long-established rules) every time. These threats include the politicization of language, as in politically correct speech; threats from bureaucrats, businessmen, and politicians who use language to obfuscate, confuse and deceive, or in the case of academics to disguise a dearth of ideas; and, finally, threats from linguists who promote a laissez-faire approach to language.
Ever since the ancient Egyptians began scratching hieroglyphics into sandstone, civilization's most brilliant writers and thinkers have maintained a deep appreciation for -- in Swift's phrase -- the "proper words in their proper places," and felt it their duty to defend their language against its natural tendency to slide back into barbarism. In the preface to his 1755 dictionary Samuel Johnson noted how "…tongues, like governments, have a natural tendency to degeneration; we have long preserved our constitution, let us make some struggle for our language." Johnson's statement would get only derision from today's anything-goes linguists.
The difference between the Age of Johnson and now is that proper and elegant language today is seen as elitist and anti-democratic, whereas once it was considered every educated man's duty to uphold. Here is linguistic pioneer Friedrich von Schlegel writing in 1815:
The care of the national language is at all times a sacred trust and a most important privilege of the higher orders of society. Every man of education should make it the object of his unceasing concern to preserve his language pure and entire, to speak it, so far as in his power, in all its beauty and perfection.
Language, being an important part of our national heritage, as well as our cultural identity, necessary says a great deal about what kind of people we are. A slovenly, anarchic language reflects poorly on us. The language liberals may have abandoned their duty to preserve the language, but the recent popularity of "why oh why" books such as Lynne Truss' Eats, Shoots & Leaves and Robert Hartwell Fiske's Dictionary Of Disagreeable English prove that the public is serious about its upkeep. Once again academics and other language liberals have shown themselves to be out of touch with the mainstream and their opinions hopelessly irrelevant.
BTTT
Language will do what it's always done -- change and serve to differentiate the classes.
And if I see "anyways" (a nonexistent word!) posted to FR,one more time,I shall not be accountable for my reply. ;^)
They do it for shock value and under the illusion that it is somehow "keeping it real." Fear not, we are not turning into a nation of Eliza Doolittles...though, wouldn't it be love-er-ly?
What an ass. Everything changes. The question is, does the language become richer (good)? Or does it become poorer (bad and happening now)?
How many kids now know the difference between "bring" and "take" as one small example?
You will see it - "irregardess"
"hopefully" not often.
-particularly when it comes about out of laziness and the dumbing-down of grammar rules.
One other example: I have in my briefcase an application letter for a Siebel developer position. The last sentence of the letter reads: "Please contact me when u r ready."
Unfortunately, a large segment of Americans use far less of the available words on English,because they don't know them. English is a wonderful language,most of which has gone into decline from disuse.It did NOT used to be this way...even poor people knew more English than most in the middle class know today.*sigh*
Too true. Whatever happened to grammar-nuns? Or Strunk and White?
Language reflects a culture. So asking if language is becoming richer is a trick question. Is our culture becoming richer? Yeah, probably.
How many believe that "anyways" is actually a real word? :-(
LOL Too many. How about 'irregardless?"
Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrh! Not "irregardless" and the misused "hopefully" as well;please! My eyes,my eyes!
Our society is becoming economically/financially richer. We are not becoming culturally richer. Shall I compare Shakespeare to "Who's your Daddy?" Shall I compare Beethoven to Spice Girls?
Does anyone remember the PBS special "The Civil War"? In that special they read the letters of dozens of soldiers, North and South. Those "ignorant farm boys" wrote beautifully. Very few of us could match them.
And then,there is the prevalence of misusing "I" and "me"...when it's so simply to know when to use either.
I may just weep. *sigh*
It only seemed as if the middle class had a stronger vocabulary. They really didn't. In any event, a strong vocabulary no longer holds an appear for a middle class whose culture is now popular and largely visual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.