Is English "degrading" or just changing?

[Malthus]

English is the language that lurks in dark alleys, knocking other languages unconcious and going through their pockets to steal vocabulary.

[JohnT]

Oh, bull. For we English speakers, there’s no need to lurk in dark alleys as we are rather proud of our linguistic cannibalism. After all, one of the things that we celebrate about Shakespeare was that he was very proficient in stealing words from other languages.

[OneMissedPost]

English is always changing. I agree with the article that I cited because people do have different language experiences. When I first took journalism classes, I had to get a crash course in grammer, spelling, etc. What used to drive me crazy was the use of hyphens. Journalism in itself is like a different language. Someone with a different background might word sentences differently or use different grammer than someone else.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@JohnT

For we English speakers,

“For we”? :eek:

[DianaG]

@OneMissedPost

English is always changing. I agree with the article that I cited because people do have different language experiences. When I first took journalism classes, I had to get a crash course in grammer, spelling, etc. What used to drive me crazy was the use of hyphens. Journalism in itself is like a different language. Someone with a different background might word sentences differently or use different grammer than someone else.

Grammar.

[OneMissedPost]

@DianaG

Grammar.

Yeah, I’m not the best at it. Oh well. I need to use spellcheck.

[Anne_Neville]

@smiling_bandit

I say a language can experience degredation, when useful and meaningful words become vague or inexpressive. C. S. lewis wrote about one he knew of, where the word “gentleman,” which had a specific social meaning, got turned into a clone fo the word “polite.” That adaptation ultimately added nothing to the language, but did in fact remove a useful word in British society.

But you can’t have useful change, where useful new words get added, without losing some other words. People can only remember and use so many words.

Also, I question whether it was the language or the society that changed, in that case. If nobody in a society cares any more about whether someone owns land or has a coat of arms, then “gentleman”, in that sense, is not a particularly useful word. It’s going to either get dropped from the language or used for some other purpose, because most speakers of English are not going to need to use it for its original purpose.

@JohnT

It’s all a matter of perspective, but I think most of my English teachers would’ve killed me if I constructed the above fragment

Bah, prescriptivists. I prefer the definition of proper grammar a linguistics-major friend gave me: “A native speaker said it, and another native speaker understood what it meant.”

[Swords_to_Plowshares]

18th and 19th century vernacular was probably as much of an abomination to proper language as today’s is.

Keep in mind that back in the day, if you could read and write then you were probably very well educated. Nowadays, most everyone can read and write at some level, but the levels can vary widely.

[smiling_bandit]

@Anne_Neville

But you can’t have useful change, where useful new words get added, without losing some other words. People can only remember and use so many words.

Also, I question whether it was the language or the society that changed, in that case. If nobody in a society cares any more about whether someone owns land or has a coat of arms, then “gentleman”, in that sense, is not a particularly useful word. It’s going to either get dropped from the language or used for some other purpose, because most speakers of English are not going to need to use it for its original purpose.

In response to you and RickJay-

Both of your points are correct but don’t apply in this case. We still have an use the word gentleman; it’s just very limited. We not only do know more words over time (the English language has increased its vocabulary considerably, more words are used on a daily basis.

And in this particular case, the language did change, not society. Even today the old word gentleman could have the same meaning in England that it did two centuries ago. Not in America, of course, which is why I’m not talking about America here.

[Apollyon]

@JohnT

Oh, bull. For we English speakers, there’s no need to lurk in dark alleys as we are rather proud of our linguistic cannibalism.

I think Malthus is referencing a quote on the “purity” of English:

[QUOTE=James Nicoll]
The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary
[/QUOTE]

(Wiki link)

[Apollyon]

Just to add an interesting link, since Strunk was referenced up-thread…

50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice.

[Malthus]

@Apollyon

I think Malthus is referencing a quote on the “purity” of English:
(Wiki link)

Yup, though I’d forgotten to whom the quote ought to be attributed. Thanks!

[Peremensoe]

@Anne_Neville

But you can’t have useful change, where useful new words get added, without losing some other words. People can only remember and use so many words.

The language doesn’t have to lose words because of an individual speaker’s limits. The language has long included more working words than any one of us ever uses.