There is a tendency among linguistic conservatives to suggest that the English language is descending into incoherency and silliness. I submit that they are wrong: humans communicate, on an instinctive level, fairly well, regardless of (and even despite) the efforts of grammarians to preserve the language. Usage changes, but over time we do not tend to devolve into stupidity and incoherence.
For example, at the time of the compilation of the King James version of the Bible, and the time of Shakespeare, there was a common word that we no longer use: "verily."
"Verily" basically meant "truly" or "truthfully." A phrase you would probably read from that time would be, "Verily, verily, I say unto you." Which, translated into modern English, would be something like, "Truly, truly, I'll tell you."
So here's my observation: "Verily" has been replaced in modern English with the word "really." I submit that, in fact, there is no semantic difference between the Shakespearean "verily" and the early 21st century "really."
For example: "Are you really sure?" and "Art thou verily certain?" are the same sentence. Or consider this: "Really, this hurts a lot," and "Verily, it doth pain me greatly." Is there, functionally, any difference?
If you don't believe me, okay, but, I'd like you to give me an example of a sentence where I couldn't substitute the word "really" for the word "verily" and have it work perfectly well.
Here's another observation: Fourteen years ago, a movie called Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure was a big hit, especially among teenagers and young twenty-somethings. In it, two quite stupid young men went through some fairly ridiculous comedic adventures. They were not very bright, but were frequently given to two exclamations: "Awe-sommmme!" and "Egg-sulent!" (I.E. "awesome" and "excellent").
But here's my observation: despite whatever comedic intent behind their somewhat-silly pronunciations, and whatever snobbish notions that we might have about such a silly movie, the fact of the matter is that they used the words "awesome" and "excellent" completely correctly. Pick up any dictionary, look up those two words, and tell me: what, if anything, was wrong with their usage?
I suggest that, whatever eye-rolling we might do about such a silly movie, there's something quite wonderful about the fact that two fabulous words like "awesome" and "excellent" should make their way into the everyday parlance of modern American teenagers.
Are you sneering? If so, tell me: why I am I wrong?
Personally, I think it's high time we introduced some new $50 words to mainstream speak. My vote is for the all-purpose sterquilinian, meaning "having originated in a dungheap." No matter which side of the aisle you're on, I think we can all agree that sterquilinian is a priceless word for political discourse. I wish it would catch on. I have visions of teenagers shortening it to "Sterq!" and using it as an all-purpose interjection.
Common sense dictates that languages evolve. However, I think the concerns of the linguists you mention is not that language is decending into incoherence. Maybe what they are concerned about are new patuas forming under the english language umbrella.
It was not a silly movie.
I could care less. Irregardless.
There's a myriad of reasons that you should.
'Bill and Ted' is actually quite lyrical. I'll never forget that ominous line: "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K."
Anyhow, while we're introducing lofty words, how about "speculist?"
Strange things are afoot at the Circle K.
Verily, 'tis a wonderful line.
Is "myriad" as a noun incorrect? I thought that was actually allowed to be either a noun or an adjective.
Sorry for double-post, I should've just looked it up---Webster has the noun as the FIRST definition, not the adjective. They wouldn't have the noun first if it were improper, would they?
If we're being anal-retentive, it should have been "There're myriad reasons" rather than "There's a myriad of reasons."
However, Jonathan gets bonus points for simply using the term "myriad."
;-)
I was trying to be a linguistic goofball, following Charles' excellent example, but as I look this up in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English language (remember, there is no copyright protection of "Webster" so any moron with a printing press can create a "Webster's dictionary" and many have) it actually does list a noun usage for the word.
So I guess it's like "legion" in it's dual-usefulness.
If I have to give the bonus points back, I will surrender them.
Well, as long as we are being pedantic, the phrase "a myriad of", while cliched is clearly a part of standard English. (The second definition of the first sense of "myriad" in Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed., is "2: a great number (a ~ of ideas)." (Note that I replaced the angle brackets with parentheses, as I chose not to try to figure out what html is allowed here. 8-)
In addition, this construction ("a ~ of") has plenitude of history in our language -- "a herd of cows", "a sufficiency of complaints", etc.
The post does remind me, however, that some of the basest sorts of popular culture often use quite sophisticated language. The best example I can think of is super-hero comic books, which often use elegant and/or archaic words and constructions very aptly.
Aaah, make that "a plenitude of history".
That's what I get for editing and then not re-previewing. (How's that for a word?)
<types up reply>
<previews>
<finds he's crossed posts with Doug>
<points to Doug>
Yeah. What he said.
(PS -- Doug, you can always use HTML entities to make the angle brackets. Just type < and > respectively. :) )
(PSS -- Okay, I lied, I have no post-script-script, I just couldn't resist the urge to use THIS pet peeve of mine. Heh.)
I have always been a fan of Miriam-Webster, while he is something of a fuddy-duddy, she keeps him in check. Of course, some day, I _will_ own the OED...
As far as Bill and Ted's exploits, both of the Excellent and Bogus variety, On a recent re-watch I found myself shocked at how superlatively good the acting was. Honestly, the actors just nailed the characters, and the writers didn’t condescend to either the characters or the audience...
"All we are is dust in the wind, dude"
"Dust, wind," points "Dude!"
"Awesome" means awe-inspiring or expressing awe. When people talk about the "awesome power of God" they sure don't mean God's power is merely outstanding. Of course, we have the word "awe-inspiring" for when we need it, but "awesome" is far more succinct and poetic.
As for introducing new obscure words into the mainstream, I vote for "pococurante."
I hate to be a nitpicker, but I am often critical of popular slang and language trends.
This morning, while watching the morning news, I heard the following:
Tempature (instead of temperature)
Libary (instead of library)
Kindigarden (instead of kindergarten)
Becuz (instead of because)
Fur (instead of for)
I recently moved to N. California, and I believe that sound ommission and substitution are common characteristics of the regional dialect. Although I realize that prejudice makes me feel that these folks are uneducated dolts, it is still driving me nuts!
My pet peeve at the moment is the overuse of the word "basically" -- I've included a link to my blog post about it:
http://www.fritzliess.com/movabletype/archives/000086.html
Well, I'm generally a great fan of demotic English. But I must admit, I do grit my teeth at "southmore" for sophomore, and (no, I'm not making this one up) "southball" for softball.
I often hear people say "melk" for milk-- I believe that, in one of his volumes on the American language, H.L. Mencken says this pronunciation stems from German influence?
And am I the only one who sometimes hears people say "chohldren" for children?
OK Mark...I'll have a go.
Under the spreading capitol dome
The politician screeches.
Miasma’d oriface flecked with foam
From sterquilinian speeches.
(clapclapclapclapclap!!)
Stephen, that's beautiful! Well done.
I think English is beautiful, flexible and powerful. There is a reason you can't sing rock and roll in any other language.
There are alarmists in every epoch who will interpret all evolutions of language and society as signs of decline because it's not like it USED to be. On the other end of the spectrum are the people who the book "The Language Police" is about, the PC neuter-ers of the language.
The thing about language is that it will always, always resist anyone's attempts to contain or control it. It's a tool that everyone uses every day. To police a language, you have to police the mouths of every person speaking every day, because that is where the language builds and rebuilds itself, in usage.
And I think that's awesome. Really excellent. In a way, language is like an organism perpetuating itself by spreading from person to person. It grows and reproduces. It evolves and changes according to its own needs.
There is a metaphor here, but it is escaping me.
D
I actually like the word "fabulous". It's not just for gay men anymore; I'd like to see more metrosexuality going on and have anyone use it.
I use "fabulous" all the time. And I'm not gay, last I checked.
As for sterq -- shouldn't that be "sterquilinous," not "sterqulinean?" :-)
True my 11 lb. Webster's agrees with you, but we can jump off from there can we not? Dare we risk argumentanousness and being nitpickyian?
:>)