3 ms·

Relates to the usual debate of whether the language ought to remain in the form that was crystallized at a given moment, or accept the transformation contempora

Relates to the usual debate of whether the language ought to remain in the form that was crystallized at a given moment, or accept the transformation contemporary users are making. I used to not care, but having read some Chomsky lately, it seems that some of those semantics transformations are made to serve an agenda - and now I feel that battling for stability has some sense. Kind of like trying to use the language as the unit for ideas, you might want to have the language as a stable reference frame so that everyone understands those ideas.

hodgesrm 7y ago
On the other hand language has been used for millennia as a way to exclude people. Think Oxford English or "standard" American as a marker for class, for instance. I'm fine with linguistic change if it leads to us being more accepting of others.
afiori 7y ago
> Relates to the usual debate of whether the language ought to remain in the form that was crystallized at a given moment, or accept the transformation contemporary users are making. That is a false dichotomy in my opinion. If you see language as a tool then the most relevant characteristic is not stability of fluidity, but usefulness. Language changes because we are (subtly) using is differently, some of these changes are sometimes actually many different competing mutations or are just born out of "I need a new word for this".