4 ms·
I read your comment and, though I understand the sentiment, sometimes even feeling the same myself, I don't quite agree with it. Just think: who would be inter
by henriquemaia 4y ago
I read your comment and, though I understand the sentiment, sometimes even feeling the same myself, I don't quite agree with it.
Just think: who would be interviewed in the 40s from the previous century? Just a few, highly selected individuals. So what you have is a very biased sample.
Compare that to what we have today, and the noise is obviously much, much stronger. We are almost drowning in information, everyone can virtually host their own show, and so on and so forth.
But once you weed out the noise, and select the gems, they're still there, still shining. Our time is just that, our time. We are different, for sure, but not less qualified language wise.
- verisimilitudes 4y ago
- becquerel 4y agoIf you think there weren't songs as raunchy as Anaconda back in the 40s, 30s, 20s or even the 1500s, I have a bridge to sell you.
- Retric 4y agoPlenty of average people where interviewed for one reason or another and the difference is still generally striking. Here’s some interviews with former southern slaves for example: https://www.loc.gov/collections/voices-remembering-slavery/ https://www.loc.gov/collections/voices-remembering-slavery/
- cm2187 4y agoAnd even for sophisticated people, the drop is very visible. The wealth of vocabulary of XVIII french books is nothing like any modern literature.