4 ms·

What, precisely, makes it inferior?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pm90 7y ago
Not the OP, but will take a crack: A divergence from the acceptable usage of words makes comprehension difficult, and can cause miscommunications, especially where precision is required; which happens often in a business environment. Even in a misunderstanding of proper usage can severely change the intent behind the messaging, if most communication happens over text (Slack/Email etc.). That being said... if I'm reading this correctly, its specific to communication in non-business settings, where I don't really care much about whats "proper". This is a losing battle, btw. Every society seems to struggle with the problem of keeping purity in language and all of them seem to have failed in that effort. Europeans failed to keep Latin relevant. Indians failed to keep Sanskrit relevant. The common language that is well understood by a majority will always win. And trying to keep it pure by force, just makes it die in relevance. Which is why, the fact that Oxford English Dictionary keeps adding new words to the English dictionary is one of the best indicators of the resilience of the English language.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  I don't think impurity is what I'm complaining about. What I preferred was when most of the people defining written English by their usage were more of an elite. It's not about who those people were or how exactly they used language, just that they read a broad variety of published material and not just contemporary communications.
- htns 7y ago
  >Europeans failed to keep Latin relevant. Indians failed to keep Sanskrit relevant. They kept the languages for thousands of years. Ancient Egyptians kept hieroglyphics going even longer. We are able to maintain languages without any problems, if we just choose to.
perl4ever 7y ago
When people look up and misunderstand the meaning of a word, they base their interpretation on what they already know. So they are likely not to absorb a new concept but only get a new way of saying an old one. That means that the redefined word is likely to be an inferior tool on average. It's also the case that just losing the utility of something hurts, regardless of the merits of the replacement so it's subjectively inferior to someone like me - getting older and crankier, you know.
l_t 7y ago
Speaking of precision. I think a big problem with modern use of English is that it has reduced precision. What reduces precision? 1. Increased reliance on idioms to communicate. Idioms use analogies, and usually reduce precision. Our increasingly shared cultural context via the Internet means that more and more idioms are entering common use and (IMO) reducing the clarity of communication. 2. Reduced general vocabulary. We have more jargon than ever before, but regular writing is simpler than ever. Generally speaking, a reduced vocabulary means more concepts are "mapped" onto the same words (like "great," a highly over-mapped word.) 3. Irony and sarcasm are abused as argumentation tools. Mocking a point is commonly accepted as arguing against it. I believe this stems from acceptance of irony as a normal way of communicating (as opposed to using it mainly for humor). This also results in many words having two opposite meanings, a "true" one and an ironic one. (ofc this happened in the past too, see history of the word "egregious.") 4. Ease of publishing. People put less effort into writing today because the barriers are lower. Yes, there are still authors who put a lot of thought into their work, but the Internet is awash in poorly-chosen words and ill-thought-out language that frankly didn't exist in the past. Poor language has poor meaning, and this actually damages the trust people have with the written word. Of course, this is just my personal thoughts... I don't have strong problems with modern language. I think your question about "inferior" is a good one because superior vs. inferior doesn't make sense without metrics for comparison. If the metric is personal appreciation, then superior vs inferior is just subjective. If the metric is density of information transfer, I suspect we've improved.
- pasabagi 7y ago
  I frequently write to my grandma, who is fairly well-educated, and her writing is technically good. It is, however, bad writing. It's a pattern I've noticed quite a lot with older people. They write perfectly-formed garbage. I think the amount of time people spend writing today is greater than at any time in history, and I think it shows. That's my intuition. But I'd also note, your points (1, 3 for example) contradict eachother. You complain that writing is simple (2), but unclear (1), idiomatic, but jargon-laced. My thinking is that modern writing is a sort of colourful digression from the Elements of Style. Irony, simplicity, and idiom seem like good ingredients for playful, powerful writing.
vic20forever 7y ago
How much time have we all wasted reading threads that consisted mostly of folks arguing past one another, because each participant misunderstood what the other was trying to say? I used Usenet during the 1990s, and communication was much easier, because grammar usage was much more uniform(1)(2) (1)Changes in the rules of grammar aren't the primary problem, IMHO. The problem is folks who don't follow any rules at all; rather, they simply string together word sequences that sound familiar. (2)I sympathize with young folks today who don't have a good grasp of grammar. Most of my education came from reading newspapers and magazines, which still employed expert editors when I was growing up.
- Jweb_Guru 7y ago
  The Usenet population was more uniform. People argue past each other because they don't agree on the premises, not because language has become less clear.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

pm90 7y ago

Not the OP, but will take a crack: A divergence from the acceptable usage of words makes comprehension difficult, and can cause miscommunications, especially where precision is required; which happens often in a business environment. Even in a misunderstanding of proper usage can severely change the intent behind the messaging, if most communication happens over text (Slack/Email etc.). That being said... if I'm reading this correctly, its specific to communication in non-business settings, where I don't really care much about whats "proper". This is a losing battle, btw. Every society seems to struggle with the problem of keeping purity in language and all of them seem to have failed in that effort. Europeans failed to keep Latin relevant. Indians failed to keep Sanskrit relevant. The common language that is well understood by a majority will always win. And trying to keep it pure by force, just makes it die in relevance. Which is why, the fact that Oxford English Dictionary keeps adding new words to the English dictionary is one of the best indicators of the resilience of the English language.

perl4ever 7y ago
I don't think impurity is what I'm complaining about. What I preferred was when most of the people defining written English by their usage were more of an elite. It's not about who those people were or how exactly they used language, just that they read a broad variety of published material and not just contemporary communications.
htns 7y ago
>Europeans failed to keep Latin relevant. Indians failed to keep Sanskrit relevant. They kept the languages for thousands of years. Ancient Egyptians kept hieroglyphics going even longer. We are able to maintain languages without any problems, if we just choose to.

perl4ever 7y ago

When people look up and misunderstand the meaning of a word, they base their interpretation on what they already know. So they are likely not to absorb a new concept but only get a new way of saying an old one. That means that the redefined word is likely to be an inferior tool on average. It's also the case that just losing the utility of something hurts, regardless of the merits of the replacement so it's subjectively inferior to someone like me - getting older and crankier, you know.

l_t 7y ago

Speaking of precision. I think a big problem with modern use of English is that it has reduced precision. What reduces precision? 1. Increased reliance on idioms to communicate. Idioms use analogies, and usually reduce precision. Our increasingly shared cultural context via the Internet means that more and more idioms are entering common use and (IMO) reducing the clarity of communication. 2. Reduced general vocabulary. We have more jargon than ever before, but regular writing is simpler than ever. Generally speaking, a reduced vocabulary means more concepts are "mapped" onto the same words (like "great," a highly over-mapped word.) 3. Irony and sarcasm are abused as argumentation tools. Mocking a point is commonly accepted as arguing against it. I believe this stems from acceptance of irony as a normal way of communicating (as opposed to using it mainly for humor). This also results in many words having two opposite meanings, a "true" one and an ironic one. (ofc this happened in the past too, see history of the word "egregious.") 4. Ease of publishing. People put less effort into writing today because the barriers are lower. Yes, there are still authors who put a lot of thought into their work, but the Internet is awash in poorly-chosen words and ill-thought-out language that frankly didn't exist in the past. Poor language has poor meaning, and this actually damages the trust people have with the written word. Of course, this is just my personal thoughts... I don't have strong problems with modern language. I think your question about "inferior" is a good one because superior vs. inferior doesn't make sense without metrics for comparison. If the metric is personal appreciation, then superior vs inferior is just subjective. If the metric is density of information transfer, I suspect we've improved.

pasabagi 7y ago
I frequently write to my grandma, who is fairly well-educated, and her writing is technically good. It is, however, bad writing. It's a pattern I've noticed quite a lot with older people. They write perfectly-formed garbage. I think the amount of time people spend writing today is greater than at any time in history, and I think it shows. That's my intuition. But I'd also note, your points (1, 3 for example) contradict eachother. You complain that writing is simple (2), but unclear (1), idiomatic, but jargon-laced. My thinking is that modern writing is a sort of colourful digression from the Elements of Style. Irony, simplicity, and idiom seem like good ingredients for playful, powerful writing.

vic20forever 7y ago

How much time have we all wasted reading threads that consisted mostly of folks arguing past one another, because each participant misunderstood what the other was trying to say? I used Usenet during the 1990s, and communication was much easier, because grammar usage was much more uniform(1)(2) (1)Changes in the rules of grammar aren't the primary problem, IMHO. The problem is folks who don't follow any rules at all; rather, they simply string together word sequences that sound familiar. (2)I sympathize with young folks today who don't have a good grasp of grammar. Most of my education came from reading newspapers and magazines, which still employed expert editors when I was growing up.

Jweb_Guru 7y ago
The Usenet population was more uniform. People argue past each other because they don't agree on the premises, not because language has become less clear.