Tag Archives: English language

Language, words, and relevance #amwriting

I’ve said it before, and I will say it again, English is like water–it shifts, it flows, and it takes what it wants from every other language it comes across. That naughty  penchant for word-thievery is what makes English so much fun to play with.

This continual evolution is also what makes it so difficult to work with. The very roots of English encourage the continual changing soundscape, because it is a living language.

Think about it–a bunch of smart guys in Victorian England applied the rules of a dead language, Latin, to an evolving language with completely different roots, Frisian glued to Old French, added a bunch of made-up words and usages invented by William Shakespeare, and called it “Grammar.”

Consider these words that either signify lazy speech habits or a shift in the language:

  • Supposably… oh wait, did you mean supposedly?
  • Liberry… no sir you must go to the library for those books–the liberry is not a truthful fruit and may give you hives.
  • Feberry... I hope you mean it will happen in February because Feberry will never come.
  • Honestness... In all honesty, I am not sure what to make of that one.

My favorite new word is Prolly, which my granddaughters seem to think means Probably, but in all honestness, doesn’t.

It’s not a new problem.

Jonathan Swiftwriter and dean of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Dublin, complained to Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer, in 1712: “Our Language is extremely imperfect. Its daily Improvements are by no means in proportion to its daily Corruptions; and the Pretenders to polish and refine it, have chiefly multiplied Abuses and Absurdities.” He went so far as to say, “In many Instances, it offends against every Part of Grammar.”

I feel that may prolly be a little harsh.

But this all boils down to what our current language really sounds like, and what it may become in fifty years. If a true classic like The Hobbit is written in too old-fashioned a style for young people to read now, that doesn’t bode well for the longevity of the books we authors are so carefully crafting now.

But these shifts in sound and accent and the influx of new words into the language have a side effect I find disturbing. As frequently happens, this problem is caused by people with good intentions.

A great commentary was posted in the Guardian a while back, called The word-hoard: Robert Macfarlane on rewilding our language of landscape, written by Robert McFarlane and posted February 27, 2015. He states that many common words are being omitted from school dictionaries now in an effort to modernize them. (Acorn, beech, bluebell, buttercup, catkin, conker, cowslip, cygnet, dandelion, fern, hazel, heather, heron, ivy, kingfisher, lark, mistletoe, nectar, newt, otter, pasture, and willow.)

How will a modern reader understand a book like Watership Down if the meanings of those words  which describe common plants and animals are no longer relevant? And that beautiful, highly controversial book was only first published in 1972.

If I could say one thing to those who compile dictionaries, it is that all the many words that make up our English language have relevance and should be included in what is being marketed as a truly comprehensive dictionary.

At some point, a curious reader is going to want to know the meaning of a word. If that word appeared in the dictionary at one time, why must it be removed just because a committee of scholars with narrow life experiences don’t use it in conversation? This is especially important in a school dictionary.

At least the publishers of most dictionaries seem to be aware of this modern fact: In an on-line dictionary they have unlimited space and the per-page cost is not an issue as it is in a printed book. So, as the language shifts, I hope they continue to ensure the comprehensiveness of their online dictionaries by adding the new words and meanings and continuing to explain the old.

Conversation and literature both occur in Modern English, but conversation and literature are completely different mediums. For us to omit words from the dictionary because they have fallen out of common use in some people’s conversational milieu is shortsighted. At that point, the dictionary is not as comprehensive as we are pretending it is.

How will the landscape of our language look in fifty years? I sometimes doubt I will be understood, speaking in my ancient Northwest American dialect, using words that have no relevance. Without a comprehensive dictionary, how will the words I write today be understood by my great-grandchildren?

Prolly they won’t be.


Credits and Attributions:

Watership Down, by Richard Adams, first edition cover, Rex Collings, Publisher, 1972, Fair Use via Wikimedia Commons

Wikipedia contributors. (2018, May 8). Watership Down. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 23:37, May 13, 2018, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watership_Down&oldid=840171659

Advertisements

14 Comments

Filed under writing

Wordless Dictionaries

oxford_dictionaryWe are in the midst of an extreme shift in the English language, a continual evolution as impossible to stop as the  melting of the Antarctic ice-cap. This change is not necessarily a terrible thing, but it does come along with some interesting complications.

Robert Macfarlane discussed one negative aspect of our language shift in a blog post last week for The Guardian. He is not  saying that the rapid shift in our dialect and word-usage is bad–after all, language needs to be spoken and it is like water: it’s always on the move and incredibly difficult to contain.

cowslip

cowslip

But Macfarlane sees a negative in the modern view of this fluidity, one that struck a real chord with me: “Under pressure, Oxford University Press revealed a list of the entries it no longer felt to be relevant to a modern-day childhood. The deletions included acorn, adder, ash, beech, bluebell, buttercup, catkin, conker, cowslip,cygnet, dandelion, fern, hazel, heather, heron, ivy, kingfisher, lark, mistletoe,nectar, newt, otter, pasture and willow. The words taking their places in the new edition included attachment, block-graph, blog, broadband, bullet-point, celebrity, chatroom, committee, cut-and-paste, MP3 player and voice-mail. As I had been entranced by the language preserved in the prose‑poem of the “Peat Glossary”, so I was dismayed by the language that had fallen (been pushed) from the dictionary. For blackberry, read Blackberry.”

Now, admittedly Robert Macfarlane is an avid reader of literary fiction, and he also writes literary and travel books. However, many people are  still reading above the comic book level, and what he has to say in his piece concerns the dumbing-down or “flattening” of the language. Don’t try to tell me there isn’t enough room in the book for these words. Dictionaries are on-line now and there is in infinite amount of space in the internet for these words.

oxford school dictionaryDictionaries are the first reference book children will come into contact with in their schools, followed closely nowadays by Wikipedia. I admit that in a desk-reference form space is limited, but in a world where Blackberry means a smart-phone, there is no lack of space.

How will the landscape of our language look in fifty years? I sometimes doubt I would be understood, speaking in my ancient Northwest American dialect, using words that have no relevance. Without a comprehensive dictionary, how will the words I write today be understood by my great-grandchildren?

If I could say one thing to those who compile dictionaries it is that ALL the many words that make up our English language  have relevance and should be  included in what is being marketed as a truly comprehensive dictionary. At some point, a curious reader is going to want to know the meaning of a word, and if that word appeared in the dictionary  at one time, why must it be removed just because a committee of naive scholars with extremely limited experience feels it is not needed?

_72982736_vikings courtesy of BBCTo me, this is tantamount to a mass burning of books just because they contain “dangerous ideas.”

I have one thing to say to the modern publishers of dictionaries: You have unlimited space in an on-line dictionary. When you allow words to fall out of the dictionary because they have fallen out of common use in YOUR milieu,  your dictionary is not as comprehensive as you are pretending it is. You have lost YOUR relevance at that point.

These mongers of wordless dictionaries should feel some shame, because they are as responsible for the dumbing-down of the English language as is the casual speaker. Their own relevance is questionable, as more and more seekers of quick information will find it in the bowels of the fount of all knowledge, Wikipedia, OR they will Google it, as I did the word “inexorable.”

6 Comments

Filed under Adventure, Battles, Books, Fantasy, Humor, Literature, Publishing, Self Publishing, Uncategorized, writer, writing