Is Language Static?

[SummerMadness]

Depends on the language. Latin is pretty static.

When Latin had widespread use (e.g., not simply for scientific nomenclature) it was a language that shifted and changed, hence the difference between classical Latin and vulgar Latin. You could also argue that the languages that emerged from Latin is further evidence that it isn't static. Language constantly evolves and changes.

 

[Rion]

When Latin had widespread use (e.g., not simply for scientific nomenclature) it was a language that shifted and changed, hence the difference between classical Latin and vulgar Latin. You could also argue that the languages that emerged from Latin is further evidence that it isn't static. Language constantly evolves and changes.

Latin is a dead language. That's the joke.

 

[SummerMadness]

Latin is a dead language. That's the joke.

Not a very funny joke. But even taking a dead language, it was not static.

 

[Dave-W]

Latin is a dead language. That's the joke.

Indeed. I saw this poem written inside the cover of my Latin I text book in high school:

Latin is a dead language
It's very plain to see
It killed off all the Romans
And now it's killing me.

 

[saffron park]

Indeed. I saw this poem written inside the cover of my Latin I text book in high school:

Latin is a dead language
It's very plain to see
It killed off all the Romans
And now it's killing me.

Ha ha, that's great.

No, language is not static, and it's a mistake to treat it that way. I like this quote by Samuel Johnson that explains this:

"When we see men grow old and die at a certain time one after another, from century to century, we laugh at the elixir that promises to prolong life to a thousand years; and with equal justice may the lexicographer be derided, who being able to produce no example of a nation that has preserved their words and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his dictionary can embalm his language, and secure it from corruption and decay, that it is in his power to change sublunary nature, and clear the world at once from folly, vanity, and affectation.

With this hope, however, academies have been instituted, to guard the avenues of their languages, to retain fugitives, and repulse intruders; but their vigilance and activity have hitherto been vain; sounds are too volatile and subtile for legal restraints; to enchain syllables, and to lash the wind, are equally the undertakings of pride, unwilling to measure its desires by its strength. The French language has visibly changed under the inspection of the academy; the stile of Amelot's translation of Father Paul is observed, by Le Courayer to be un peu passé; and no Italian will maintain that the diction of any modern writer is not perceptibly different from that of Boccace, Machiavel, or Caro."

 

[durangodawood]

Unfortunately true.

Like with most things, language benefits from a balance of conservative and progressive forces.

 

[pat34lee]

There is a big difference between how a language changes,
and attempts to force change on it, and thus on all people
who speak the language. Gay, for example was not a natural
change, but a political one.

The left has a nasty habit of trying to corrupt the language
for whatever reason. Ebonics is another gross corruption of
English. And, rather than correct it, the left wants to enshrine
it, because it keeps many poor people from receiving a proper
education, and limits their ability to get far in business.

 

[jardiniere]

Look how some people take a nice little directional adjective and turn it into a pejorative. Very creative.

 

[durangodawood]

...Gay, for example was not a natural
change, but a political one....

How do you know this?

 

[pat34lee]

How do you know this?

When I say political here, I mean for a political purpose,
not by a political party, though it is that, too. They wanted
something that sounded more accepting than homosexual,
and what better than a word that means happy or joyous?
Something nearly opposite of the facts. A more natural use
or outgrowth is pejorative. "That's so gay."

 

[durangodawood]

When I say political here, I mean for a political purpose,
not by a political party, though it is that, too. They wanted
something that sounded more accepting than homosexual,
and what better than a word that means happy or joyous?
Something nearly opposite of the facts. A more natural use
or outgrowth is pejorative. "That's so gay."

I understand the sense in which you mean 'political'. But how do you know this was a conscious choice by the gay movement to use the word?

 

[pat34lee]

I understand the sense in which you mean 'political'. But how do you know this was a conscious choice by the gay movement to use the word?

I don't know if this is accurate or not. If so, then gay
and similar words started with the homosexuals and
moved out from there.
A History of 'Gay' and Other Queerwords

 

[durangodawood]

I don't know if this is accurate or not. If so, then gay
and similar words started with the homosexuals and
moved out from there.
A History of 'Gay' and Other Queerwords

From the essay it sounds like "gay" was sexualized prior to it being homo-sexualized.

For the past two or three centuries gay has had sexual overtones in general. In the eighteenth century lewd behaviour was part of the “gay life”, enjoyed by both men and women.

 

[pat34lee]

From the essay it sounds like "gay" was sexualized prior to it being homo-sexualized.

For the past two or three centuries gay has had sexual overtones in general. In the eighteenth century lewd behaviour was part of the “gay life”, enjoyed by both men and women.

True, sounds like it meant something similar to "the wild life".
Debauchery. And went down from there.