This post quotes me from another source. "[Caution: wonkish.] "Our American version of our language, English, has for years been of two distinct varieties. There is the written language, precise and driven by the rules of grammar. Than there's like, you know, the spoken stuff, er, what we say to each other, right? And now, with the advent of the thumb-operated cell phone, we've a third off-shoot; texting. It's remarkably rich in acronyms, imho. Some of them make the transition and become words. "The change in language with time has, until recently, proceeded at a stately pace. In some countries, notably France, the pace has been slower than in others. Here in the United States of America, I believe the pace has significantly speeded up, driven by two primary forces: the internet and the polarization of politics. Political palaver, as the 'red' and 'blue' factions have moved to more and more extreme positions, has generated a number of neologisms, often vituperative in nature. The game of 'one-upmanship' played by these factions continues to generate new buzz words and phrases. The 'net, along with the media writ large, has provided the means of quickly spreading knowledge and use of these new expressions. "I've but a glimpse of where this is heading. It's certainly a fascinating thing to observe from my old rocking chair. "Regards, stay safe 'n well . . . 'n literate."
Good morning Torus34, It's pretty interesting the see (and hear) the changes in language over time. I have to admit, texting has become a way for me to keep in touch with family, and I've absorbed so many of those acronyms simply because it makes it simpler to compose a quick text--IMO. I agree that the changes in language have taken place more slowly in the past, but there are also times when it evolved rather "quickly". The thing about language evolving is that groups such as the Angles, Saxons, and Danes invaded England after the Roman's left. That brought big changes rather quickly. However, the evolution of English after William the Conqueror was not as overwhelming. Still, in those cases, foreign languages came in an mingled with the native languages, changing and adapting over time. We can already see that Spanish is mingling with English, and even though the changes will take time, they will happen much faster than in the past because of modern technology. And of course, modern usage--as in what we consider to be "cool"-- changes generationally. Think back to the language of the Hippies and follow the changes within our lifetimes. I assume many of the trendy terms of today will follow that path. As you mentioned, words (such as "woke") have a strong political connection. I also notice that old words can be repurposed for political reasons. The word "ilk" is such an ugly word, that using it as a political pejorative is just too easy. And as politicians like Gingrich have shown us, we can choose an handful of words to use as labels that make the other team look evil and ignorant. And once we label everything politically, it's so easy to stuff people into our stereotype-boxes.
Adfundum: Thank you for adding interesting details and a generous helping of history to the topic. I've had time to reflect on some of what I posted. One sentence dealt with acronyms becoming words -- a kind of Velveteen Rabbit transition. Some of the texting acronyms may suffer from too many syllables to make the transition or, as a function of the letters involved, may not rest trippingly on the tongue. [Ed.: Enough with surreptitiously swiping Shakespeare, dude.] As you can guess, I'm fascinated by this wonderful, malleable tool we use to capture, enshrine and transmit our thoughts. Regards, best wishes to you and yours.
Good morning Torus, I share that fascination with language. I'm a bit fixed on how language is used to trigger emotional responses these days. A bit of psychology there, so I'll skip that. You mentioned the difference between spoken and written language. I thought about that, not so much as it relates to the modern sense, but the historical. The fact that Chaucer chose to use the language of the commoners instead of the Upper Crusty mix of Latin and French is quite interesting in the sense that it better reflects the way people saw the world back then. More importantly, it lays a foundation for unifying the many versions of English spoken in the 1300s. And tying in (sort of) to what you mentioned, it can be seen as an example of how written language helped to unify spoken language. Language changes over time, and the meanings of words changes with it. Anyway, I do wonder if written language is all that precise. Words can have meanings that evolve and, depending on a person's understanding, can be read in multiple ways. I look at how "groomer" is used recently, and I understand how a bundle of sticks became a pejorative. And I see how technology, like Chaucer's writings, led to a rapid spread of how we change our language. You referred to grammar, and we also notice that it changes over time. Of course, grammar has lost much of it's assumed importance in writing today. Even when I was in college, there were two ways of looking at things--prescriptivist and descriptivist grammar. Since then, descriptivists have pushed prescriptivists aside far enough that the rules of grammar are no longer taught in public schools (other than the most basic elements). One of those things I find amusing is the use of pronouns. The issue reminds me of Ayn Rand's book, Anthem. Not sure if you know that story, but in it, there is no "I" pronoun. Every individual refers to the self as we. Today, we see a push to replace he and she with they. Such a muddled usage of singular and plural pronouns is not terribly new, but it's been included into the post-secondary teaching of grammar for quite a while now. That tends to change the suggestion that written language can be precise. Have a fun day.
Chaucer wrote Canterbury Tales, in which many persons from different walks of life speak. Did he show his brilliant command of the language in the introduction and have each character speak as they should? In 1992 I was a subscriber of The Atlantic Magazine. There was a short article about people trying to phase out the verb "to be" from the language. At the end he bragged that he managed to write the whole essay without using it. I read it when it was new with no real interest. Then in 2002 I read that issue again and at last understood the Bill Clinton aberration: "It depends what the meaning of is is."
Hi, Phil. Nice to see another poster who's hooked on our language. And yes, it's changing even as we type. I must admit to missing the stealthy 'they' incursion. I put it down to people who didn't take time to proofread what they posted. With some background in proofreading, I spotted the they's* but missed the implication. The royal 'we' has been around for a while, but that's another story. Thank you for joining in the conversation. Best wishes to you and yours. {Ed.: Yours is possessive and plural but no 'postrophe, right?] * The spellchecker gets befuddled when I refer to 'they' as a word and try to form a plural of it qua word. Oh well . . .
Thank you Torus. Please notice Adfundum. I've been away from the forum for a few days, can only post from mother's house for some reason. Since I can remember people have used the word "their" as a substitute for he or she and his or hers. I try hard to avoid that. Adfundum mentioned Chaucer. I only read the introduction to Canterbury Tales plus a couple of the tales. If Chaucer knew every word Samuel Johnson knew 400 years later he did not need to prove it with his stories. If he was trying to write a good commercial book, the introduction should have been in the common vernacular with a few classy words you can interpret by the context. Then each of the persons telling their tales should speak with the local dialect and words common to their business interests and regional life. The wife of Bath should speak like the poor women from that region speak. The cook should include a few cooking terms, and so on. How did he do?
Back in the summer of 2009 I heard on the radio that Obama was expected to appoint a progressive to the Supreme Court. Instinctively I responded, "Good, I thought he was going to appoint another liberal." Then it looked like progressive was just a new word for liberal. They certainly are not much like Teddy Roosevelt. We need a new word for him now. Just in the past year have we learned that the progressives are nothing like liberals. What did we call progressives before they stole the nice word for themselves? My best guess is "nuts."
Good morning Phil, When you say "introduction," are you referring to Chaucer's prologue? I've read his prologue so many times that I've lost count. What I found quite interesting is when we compare his Middle English to today's Modern English, it's not so terribly different. When you hear it spoken, you might get the impression that it's quite different; however, the biggest difference is the pronunciation. Chaucer was writing before the Great Vowel Shift, so it looks and sounds a bit different. I won't bore anyone with all that, but if you look for an audio or video of someone reading the original text and read along with it, you'll notice the similarities. Most writers in Chaucer's time used the formalized upper-class style of "proper English" mixed with Latin and French. Chaucer's writing was considered crude because it was mostly the language of the Commoners--considered a social taboo back then. I do think Chaucer's Wife of Bath used a mix of the lower class she came from and a somewhat more elevated class she lived in when telling her story. Her character was from the lower class, but she had money and seemed to see herself a notch higher than the others. What you point out is an excellent example of how the language changes. We tend to think of it as an absolute in the sense that meanings don't evolve, yet when we look back to the English of Chaucer's time, we see a constant evolution of the language caused by using words differently. Think of the word, awe. What's the difference between awe-some and aw-ful? What did awe mean originally? Why do such words change over time? One answer is that they reflect how the mind operates.
So was Chaucer trying to sell books to the middle class? Was there any chance he could impress the elites? Did King Edward pay attention to his work, especially First Knight? Since the elites write only for the elites might someone make the case that Chaucer's works became the standard for common use in the next centuries?
