A brief discussion of the
actuality of language change
actuality of language change
If language change was not an actuality, we would not be communicating in English or any other language derived from what is commonly regarded as the "parent" language, known as "Proto-Indo-European", or PIE.
That includes languages spoken by most of those living between Ireland's Atlantic shores and the Bay of Bengal, from the northernmost tips of Russia, Norway, the United States, and Canada, to the southernmost tips of Italy, Spain, Greek Cyprus, Malta, and Chile.
Oh, and in far flung places like the whole of Australia and New Zealand. Not to mention a raft of those languages spoken as minority or additional languages throughout much of the rest of the world.
Nor would we be speaking PIE.
No sirree. Rather, we would still be speaking whatever was the first language developed by humans, or if language was developed concurrently, such of those concurrent languages that were not overtaken or replaced by other "first" languages.
But this is complete nonsense, and is the primary reason why what conservative language fanatics speak and write, in at least this regard, is also complete nonsense. Mind you, so's the rest of what they speak and write, but this isn't the time or place to rap on about that.
So, as language can change, meanings of words used in language can change. For example (thankyou to blogger Kristy Rice, this is an extract from www.scribblrs.com/words-meanings-changed-over-time/, dated 1/3/2016 (or should that be 3/1/2016?), and accessed on 8/12/2016 (and not 12/8/2016!):
In some countries, like France, they have a mob who attempt to stop the language changing in any but an absolutely approved way. Well, good luck with that fellers. It doesn't and hasn't worked, and just makes for amusing stories in English-language newspapers.
So, when we come across a word that we believe has a faulty definition, we have a choice. Oh, and I should mention also, there doesn't need to be universal agreement the definition needs changing, a new word needs introducing, the spelling of a word needs changing, or that changes should apply in all circumstances.
For example, if I asked you to write down a list of berries, you would, or I should write, most of you would write something like, "strawberry, blackberry, loganberry, raspberry" and so on. After all, you would probably regard yourself as pretty safe, as the word "berry" is part of the name of these little parcels of edibility.
But, under at least one definition, the scientific one, the word "berry" doesn't actually apply to any of these berries! On the other hand, eggplants (aubergine), cucumbers, tomatoes, chillis, peppers, persimmons, citrus fruit like lemons and oranges, apples, peaches, and grapes are berries (although whether or not some of these are "true" berries is a potential matter for some "discussion"!). Come on guys, why the devil does anyone give a flying fart about this stuff? Only certain types of botanist would be affected by this definition, so don't go losing your banana (berry!) over it. And, oh, yes, blueberries are, in fact, berries!
The fact is, it's not unusual for changes to be thrown into the linguistic mess that is English, but which, over time, just disappear because no-one wants to use them. For example, one of the reasons English is such a mess was Noah Webster's changes to the language as it's used in the United States, mostly rather sensible or even more connected to earlier English English. For example (English English/US English), theatre/theater, honour/honor, defence/defense, and so on. But not all Noah's proposals took off, even in the US. For example (English/Noah), machine/mashine, cloak/cloke, turnip/turnep, thumb/thum, and so on.
And, of course, English as spoken and written in England has steadfastly hung on to silly spellings of words because it doesn't want its language taken over by colonials. Mind you, they picked up "public" and "music" in preference to "publick" and "musick". Australia went the same way as the English, but, some 10 years ago, at least Victoria's teachers were instructed to accept US spellings as correct.
So, why the hell can't we change the meaning of "civilisation" to suit our purposes, or invent a new, better word?
Click to go back to my brilliant review.
That includes languages spoken by most of those living between Ireland's Atlantic shores and the Bay of Bengal, from the northernmost tips of Russia, Norway, the United States, and Canada, to the southernmost tips of Italy, Spain, Greek Cyprus, Malta, and Chile.
Oh, and in far flung places like the whole of Australia and New Zealand. Not to mention a raft of those languages spoken as minority or additional languages throughout much of the rest of the world.
Nor would we be speaking PIE.
No sirree. Rather, we would still be speaking whatever was the first language developed by humans, or if language was developed concurrently, such of those concurrent languages that were not overtaken or replaced by other "first" languages.
But this is complete nonsense, and is the primary reason why what conservative language fanatics speak and write, in at least this regard, is also complete nonsense. Mind you, so's the rest of what they speak and write, but this isn't the time or place to rap on about that.
So, as language can change, meanings of words used in language can change. For example (thankyou to blogger Kristy Rice, this is an extract from www.scribblrs.com/words-meanings-changed-over-time/, dated 1/3/2016 (or should that be 3/1/2016?), and accessed on 8/12/2016 (and not 12/8/2016!):
- Addict – An addict was originally a person who was awarded (as a slave) to a debtor for money owed. Obviously, this word has maintained the negative connotation of slavery, though our modern version refers to substance abuse, as an abbreviated form of the word addiction.
- Artificial – Here’s a stretch…this word used to refer to someone having artistic or technical skills. The roots are still visible, as we now use it to describe something created or man-made.
- Awful – Much like awesome, awful used to describe anything worthy of awe. It still does, though the connotation has changed to involve things that are terribly worthy of awe.
- Bimbo – There’s a huge difference between a prettily vacuous and stupid woman (modern) and being one of the guys (antique).
- Desire – We usually use this word in reference to something we want, or more specifically someone we want. Originally, desire was an astrological term that encompassed the entirely fallacious study of the stars in terms of telling people's fortunes and the like. So perhaps, or perhaps not, astrologers are "desirous" or even "desirable"? Or should that only apply to astronomers?
- Evil – You may think the meaning of this word hasn’t changed much at all, as it used to describe an uppity person.
- Manage – Manage was originally quite literal and meant to have reached the age of becoming a man. Apparently, once we needed a word to describe who was in charge we repurposed manage, since those in this position were typically men. So, these days, if you're being managed by a woman, as 50% of managers should be women, although sadly we're still not at that stage, I would suggest you not show your linguistic knowledge by asking her when she became a man.
In some countries, like France, they have a mob who attempt to stop the language changing in any but an absolutely approved way. Well, good luck with that fellers. It doesn't and hasn't worked, and just makes for amusing stories in English-language newspapers.
So, when we come across a word that we believe has a faulty definition, we have a choice. Oh, and I should mention also, there doesn't need to be universal agreement the definition needs changing, a new word needs introducing, the spelling of a word needs changing, or that changes should apply in all circumstances.
For example, if I asked you to write down a list of berries, you would, or I should write, most of you would write something like, "strawberry, blackberry, loganberry, raspberry" and so on. After all, you would probably regard yourself as pretty safe, as the word "berry" is part of the name of these little parcels of edibility.
But, under at least one definition, the scientific one, the word "berry" doesn't actually apply to any of these berries! On the other hand, eggplants (aubergine), cucumbers, tomatoes, chillis, peppers, persimmons, citrus fruit like lemons and oranges, apples, peaches, and grapes are berries (although whether or not some of these are "true" berries is a potential matter for some "discussion"!). Come on guys, why the devil does anyone give a flying fart about this stuff? Only certain types of botanist would be affected by this definition, so don't go losing your banana (berry!) over it. And, oh, yes, blueberries are, in fact, berries!
The fact is, it's not unusual for changes to be thrown into the linguistic mess that is English, but which, over time, just disappear because no-one wants to use them. For example, one of the reasons English is such a mess was Noah Webster's changes to the language as it's used in the United States, mostly rather sensible or even more connected to earlier English English. For example (English English/US English), theatre/theater, honour/honor, defence/defense, and so on. But not all Noah's proposals took off, even in the US. For example (English/Noah), machine/mashine, cloak/cloke, turnip/turnep, thumb/thum, and so on.
And, of course, English as spoken and written in England has steadfastly hung on to silly spellings of words because it doesn't want its language taken over by colonials. Mind you, they picked up "public" and "music" in preference to "publick" and "musick". Australia went the same way as the English, but, some 10 years ago, at least Victoria's teachers were instructed to accept US spellings as correct.
So, why the hell can't we change the meaning of "civilisation" to suit our purposes, or invent a new, better word?
Click to go back to my brilliant review.