Is Language Static?

[SummerMadness]

Language Is Not Static

The application of grammar is a constant battle between the rules and the real world. Analogously, the dictionary is a reference for vocabulary, but if we are not careful it can be both a strait-jacket to constrain natural linguistic evolution, and a redundant source of stale meaning.

Language is not static. I seem to recall that the Random House "Word of the Year" (there's one of my pet peeves - over-use of quotes) for 2009 was "unfriend," and that this was not a new word but one resurfacing after several hundred years. And didn't Shakespeare not only spell his name inconsistently, but also add considerably to the English vocabulary? In a different wise, the most creative musicians of all time (in my book Bach, Mozart, Beethoven) all had encyclopedic knowledge and their creativity came out of intentionally breaking the rules to create new musical language. So it is with words, and to return to the question, grammar.

One of the things I notice in some topics are people arguing over the definition of words. Sometimes this comes in the form of words that have a colloquial versus legal definition, but for those discussions, it is simple, the legal definition takes precedence and its meaning is based on judicial decisions or legislative changes. Hate crimes legislation comes to mind, the definition of the word "hate" is irrelevant to bias crimes and how they are defined under law.

However, there are some words that have nothing to do with legalese, but are reflection of language usage. I just looked it up, but "google" is both a noun and a verb. Would anyone argue that you can't say google is a verb because it's simple the name of a search engine? No, because language evolves, it must evolve in response to how words are used or to help describe phenomena that did not exist previously.

One of the best examples I can think of for word evolution: bling. It's a made up slang phrase that is now part of the dictionary as everyday speech. Evolution.

I think the reference to music in this article is quite apt.

 

[christianforumsuser]

What is your reading of it

 

[SummerMadness]

What is your reading of it

Language is not static, in my opinion.

 

[christianforumsuser]

I don't understand much.

 

[SummerMadness]

I don't understand much.

Do not understand much of what?

 

[christianforumsuser]

Language for one thing. Most people don't

 

[christianforumsuser]

My fleshly mom seems to like bending phrases though, like nicknaming stuff and grinning when she does that. I guess lots of idols like celebrities do that too...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Language is not static, in my opinion.

Of course it isn't. No Latin speaking mother every gave birth to a Spanish speaking baby. Though Spanish came from Latin. It is going to change over time and some people will resist that change. They do not like the idea of new words, and you will find that they especially do not like words from an outside source. The French have gone so far as to try to make it illegal to change the language. It is a losing battle on their part.

 

[christianforumsuser]

One man's law and loss is another man's disobedience and gain. Try telling someone what to do who isn't invested the same as you. Animals follow their instinct.
People love messing with language...even worse..while boasting that they don't. Look at what happened after the Tower of Babel and how about that Babylon thing.
People are evading capture...obfuscating and teaching only biased pieces...not telling you what's inside...

 

[Dave-W]

One of the things I notice in some topics are people arguing over the definition of words.

Indeed. I learned my definitions in the late 1960s and early 70s.

 

[Dave-W]

Language is not static, in my opinion.

Unfortunately true.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Unfortunately true.

Why unfortunate?

 

[Dave-W]

Why unfortunate?

It means constantly having to re-word everything as meanings shift.

 

[christianforumsuser]

We don't write like KJV much at all do we
Cultures in time and space
Do you like same recipe fod year after year and same people same house never a single change

 

[Tinker Grey]

It means constantly having to re-word everything as meanings shift.

I suppose it depends on how much shift there is. I don't mind too much that impact is now also a verb. It took me a while to get used to it, but I have to admit that it is useful.

OTOH, even when I was a kid it felt weird in music class to sing "... and we'll all feel gay when Johnny comes marching home ..."

 

[Dave-W]

OTOH, even when I was a kid it felt weird in music class to sing "... and we'll all feel gay when Johnny comes marching home ..."

"don we now our GAY apparel ..."

 

[Tinker Grey]

"don we now our GAY apparel ..."

Don who?

 

[christianforumsuser]

Fa la la...fa lala... fa la laaaa

 

[SummerMadness]

It means constantly having to re-word everything as meanings shift.

I don't think it means to constantly reword, the gulf in between words meaning completely different things is often large. The word "gay" originated in the 12 century and it was centuries before it referenced homosexuality, and it wasn't until the 20th century that it lost almost all references to happiness and was fully associated with homosexuality. The changing of the definition over that scale of time does not suggest needing to reword as the usage change was more organic and reflective of the times.

Of course words can change over shorter scales, but those shorter scale changes don't often mean changing the meaning of the word as much as it reflects differences in how the word's usage, like the mention of "impact" earlier.

 

[Rion]

Depends on the language. Latin is pretty static.