15 ms·
Why 'Cool' is still cool
- rgbrgb_ 11y agoInteresting. Just the other day I read this article (http://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/cool-stunts-creativity-18-feet-and-rising http://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/cool-stunts-creativity-1...) that bemoaned the overuse of the word.
- DarkTree 11y agoI'm curious if anyone knows in what direction a language evolves over time. Does it grow randomly with the addition of words/phrases, or is their a system of 'natural selection'? The American English language is certainly growing as new words become commonplace, but will other words die out completely? The reason for this question is because I wonder if languages become more efficient over time. For instance, what will the American English language be like in 100 years? Will it just be larger, or will it be more precise? It would be interesting if we create more and more precise words over time so that we actually stop using less precise words, making the language ultimately as efficient as possible. I guess it depends on so many things, like dialect/region/age/etc.
- striking 11y agoLanguages grow simpler over time, in my view. I'm not an etymologist, but in my experience, long phrases that are used often are replaced with simpler ones. This isn't just in English, it's the same in Polish. And if you don't trust my anecdata, look up the German and Japanese language reform. I don't speak much of those, but they have stronger ruling bodies over their language, making it easier to track change in language. It appears the reforms slowly make the language simpler, based on feedback from the populace.
- Retra 11y agoReplacing long phrases with fewer words is not "simpler" in any measure of language simplicity I've ever heard. In fact, "simple" usually means fewer words and variety, and thus, longer sentences for covering more complex concepts. An explosion of jargon and slang doesn't make a language simple, it adds layers and layers of exclusivity and nuance.
- yongjik 11y agoThat's debatable. As a learner of English as a foreign language, I (and my classmates) had a much harder time understanding "simple" words. Throw a word like "rotate", and it's just a matter of memorizing what the word means. Throw in a "simple" word like "turn", and it has a gazillion different meanings for every situation. It's a total nightmare for language learners.
- Retra 11y agoHave you read Simple English? 'Turn' has many meanings because it has been used too often for reducing the number of words in sentences. You only have two choices when you want to do this: invent a new term (and totally confuse everyone) or use a related term (and let tome of the existing meaning bleed through.) Both of which make the language more complex.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- keeperofdakeys 11y agoAmerican English was basically invented by Webster, yet there are many words from his reinvention that didn't catch on. You can also find many modern words in the Oxford dictionary, like "lol". So it seems that both deliberate, and accidental expansions/contractions of the language are possible.
- cokernel 11y agoLinguistic evolution is much like biological evolution in that there is no a priori direction for it to go. There is a sort of natural selection in that words that don't get used don't generally get passed on to the next generation. Text and other media allow some of these words to be recovered in later generations. If history is any indication, in 100 years American English will have some precise ways of expressing things, some loose ways of expressing things, and various groups of people will be unreasonably upset with one situation or the other. If you're interested in the mechanisms of language change, I found the (2000) 3rd edition of Jean Aitchison's _Language Change: Progress or Decay?_ both readable and worth reading. There is a 4th edition, published in 2013: http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/languages-linguistics/historical-linguistics/language-change-progress-or-decay-4th-edition http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/languages-ling...
- kmicklas 11y agoThere are a lot of competing factors that drive language change. Probably the largest force is sound efficiency - speakers merge, elide, and otherwise mess with sounds in order to make speaking take less energy, or make it possible to talk faster (think runnin' instead of running). This increases efficiency for a while, until homonyms take over and meanings become too frequently ambiguous. (Think of the cot/caught merger, although that one probably confuses no one.) Then, speakers start to use lots of periphrasis and such, and eventually big compound descriptions get lexicalized as new words and grammatical structures. This makes the language more complex as it originally was. Thus language evolution often happens in cycles like this on the order of centuries. The major factor that influences the equilibrium of this cycle is number of speakers and number of adult learners. Languages with lots of speakers change more slowly, and tend to be getting simpler especially if they are assimilating new speakers (think English as it is becoming the global lingua franca.) Small insular languages with few second language learners tend to get more complex and idiosyncratic. Source: studied linguistics for a few years.
- dustincoates 11y agoYou'd like The Story of Human Language (http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/story-of-human-language.html http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/story-of-human-langua...). John McWhorter is engaging and the subject matter is interesting. One thing he mentions in the series is that languages tend to become more simple over time as they come into contact with others. This makes sense--if you're bringing people into a community who don't know the language then they're going to simplify it and that will spread. The languages that are the most complex are the ones that are most isolated. Here's a blog post about it: http://lingblog.com/2013/12/23/can-the-structure-of-society-affect-the-complexity-of-language/ http://lingblog.com/2013/12/23/can-the-structure-of-society-...
- alextgordon 11y ago"Cool" is like "OK", or "nice". They're moderate words with a moderate tone. Words like "awesome" are somewhat hyperbolic. They have a short existence because they become predictable and passé. "Cool" never lost its impact because it never had one in the first place. It's just cool. Compare: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12503686 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12503686
- urs2102 11y agoDo you think it's possible that words with similar sentiments are more likely to have a longer existance? Take the word "dope" right now, which is often used as a synonym for "cool". What's the likelihood of a word like that breaking into the mainstream and lasting?
- tlrobinson 11y agoRight now? Pretty sure "dope" has been slang for "awesome" (not necessarily the same as "cool") since at least the 90's.
- coldtea 11y agoDictionary puts it's at "80s onwards", but it should also be present in the 70s.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- beachstartup 11y agoi think dope is going to be around for a while. i know people of all races and ages up to about 45 using it non-ironically without sounding silly.
- racl101 11y agoI no longer put any stock in the word 'awesome' . It has been used way too much for things that are not awesome. I especially will not buy the recommendations of anyone who uses any of its derivatives either like "awesomesauce".
- XJOKOLAT 11y agoOn the subject of language overuse: So ... why does everyone start a sentence with "So". Both verbally and in written media. This has bugged me for quite a while. I've also been indoctrinated into it's use. It definitely assists conversation but ... "Exactly" is another one (in London anyway). Recently "exactly" has come to mean absolutely anything. E.g. "I don't know what you're talking about but I'll say 'exactly' and nod my head as a lead in to what I want to say' or just to be sounding like I'm still in the conversation" Weird how words like these become viral. Mild rant over.
- OJFord 11y agoI'm not quite sure what you mean be 'exactly'? I thought at first you meant e.g. "I'm not exactly sure what you mean" - but you mention at the start? (Also London, just haven't noticed I suppose). Regarding the use of 'So..' to lead in a sentence: this is an hideous Americanism that must be stopped from further penetrating our borders at all cost. I exaggerate, of course. But it is an Americanism; I do not like it.
- Swizec 11y agoI also don't like "So". But in spoken communication it's a good way to get somebody to stop looking at their phone for a split second so you can start telling them what you want to say. It's a less obnoxious way of saying "Hey you". Because saying "Hey you" when you're standing in front of somebody, a foot away, at conversational distance, and you were both just conversing two minutes ago is weird. But necessary. Because phones.
- arjie 11y ago"Exactly. Leading 'so' is a terrible thing, but I think the proliferation of the stand-alone 'day of' is worse." That 'exactly' is used to acknowledge what someone said and then to lead in to a related but different thing. Or sometimes as just the acknowledgement. Leading 'so' seems to me to be a softener. "So...that's not what I meant, but it's reasonable", "So...here's what I've got. Tell me what you think", "So...we've got a problem.". I don't think anyone uses leading 'so' to say something positive except to ironically lower expectations. "So...we just signed a million-dollar contract". It gives people a chance to realize that something else is coming that's not wholly positive, I think. I don't really know. It's something I've picked up in SF and I use it all the time even though I'm fully conscious of how strange it sounds.
- kevin_thibedeau 11y agoI once got derided by a gen-Y'er for describing something as "neat". Apparently that word isn't groovy anymore to describe something that's swell.
- kirklove 11y agoI like using "neat" as well. Then again I'm in my forties ;) I also like using "fantastic" instead of awesome and often get strange looks, but a bonus of being older is I don't give a crap!
- toyg 11y agoLol, "awesome" is widely mocked in the UK.
- nostromo 11y ago"Neat" is now faint praise. If your wife asks how she looks, don't say "ok," and if your coworker asks about their presentation, don't say, "it was neat."
- swalsh 11y agoGen-Y'er, I say neat but mostly because I think it's funny to use the word neat.
- EC1 11y agoWe're reaching a point where all these are coming back, but only ironically for now and in small secluded pockets of the city. Haven't spotted any legit uses in the field as of yet.
- im2w1l 11y agoI associate neat with two expressions: "neat and tidy", and "that's (pretty) neat" (positive exclamation about a way of doing something, or a solution to a problem)
- oska 11y agoI don't think "neat" has ever been "groovy". For me as an Australian it conveys a sense of a particularly American type of "squareness". It's almost never used here, nor in the UK I think. I've noticed that Bill Gates uses it a lot and he is not particularly a model of cool. BTW, not saying don't use it. If that's who you are and that's how you speak, that's cool :)
- dmd 11y agoThat's heavy, man.
- wodenokoto 11y agoI wonder if the rise of these words that relates to the senses is more due to the proliferation of books, which in turn could give more room to more casual writing. Unrelated, I have always been fascinated with how fuck has managed to stay both vulgar and popular for 100's of years.
- shurcooL 11y agoI guess I could've come up with a worse nickname when I was 12.
- jonathankoren 11y agoI've got a theory that "suck" is going to have staying power. It wasn't that long ago (say 30 years) that it was considered vulgar, while now it's quite tame. The advantage of suck is that it fills the niche of succinctly being the opposite of cool.
- inanutshellus 11y agoInitially I thought "cool" might have its staying power because it's the baseline... the first word to really encapsulate a concept (perhaps defined as "innovatively unique")... and the others are just knock-offs trying to redefine the standard. but I'm pretty sure "hep" would be considered a synonym of cool that predates it. So why didn't "hep" become the everlasting "cool" word?
- zem 11y agobecause, as per the article's theory, "hep" is not a sensory metaphor
- mjkunc 11y agoIn other words, the Times is yelling at clouds.
- milkey_mouse 11y agoSide note: as a teenager, I'm pretty sure this "on fleek" phrase everyone's touting as "the new cool phrase all the kids are saying" is a red herring to spot when people are trying too hard to be cool or something. I've never heard anyone say that in real life.