Language and literature

[Regit]

The words created by Shakespeare and 'an illiterate moron' are going to have different basic ends, but the same ultimate importance. It is expected that a 'moron' won't create a word to express his inmost love, but that same 'moron' might make up words that deal with HIS sphere of life that Shakespeare never would encounter, say a word for a new type of discrimination among the lower classes, or a new kind of crime, or even a new type of slang.

Yes, I often encounter arguments of this kind trying to persuade some of my friends to read great books instead of the typical best-selling novels, or listen to good music instead of the meaningless rnb and hiphop of todays. 'Good' and, therefore, 'better' are used here to describe the literary point of view, not every meaning you can possibly derive. In this sense comparing Shakespeare's influence on language to the influence of hiphop artists (most of them) is indeed equivalent to comparing the works of a great genious to those of illiterate morons. Hey, just because they are illiterate morons it does not necessarily mean that their works are less important or less valuable to the world as a whole; just that what they write is eternal crap in term of literary value.

In fact, your assertion that certain words can be better than others would lead me to the logical conclusion that a new purge of English is in order. I think we could create a master language if only we would ransack as many dictionaries as we could find and search the etymology of every word found therein and then destroy them from our langauge. We will then be left with a pure, beautiful, and masterful language, which might even be described, and perhaps not too inaccurately though not precisely, as Aryan. After all, we can't let those idiots create words.

Can you see the words 'logical conclusion' frowning on the page? They really don't belong in that spot. So you suggest that anyone who thinks that "Hamlet" is better than "Move b****, get out the way" or "It's getting hot in here" is suggesting that we need new world order? And anyone who uses the word 'better' to describe literature also has to consider every other implication that it might possibly lead to? I can see how this approach has made you employ such a wide range of sciences in your argument and, ultimately, left you insufficient edivence and unable to be convincing in any field.

So should we because one word has a better pedigree than the other value the one more highly?

Who's we? Who said that 'better' means having 'better dedigree'? If you want to engage in a philosophical argument about what 'better' is, then I would love to join you. But I am confused as to what direction your argument is going, literary, historically, politically, or philosophically. You mention science, poetry, politics, philosophy and linguistics, but did not really expand your argument for any subject. You even gave us a seemingly philosophic definition for 'bad' as "incomprehensible" without explaning why. You briefly mention a relationship between politics and language: "he may or may not be an illiterate moron depending on your political stance" without explaining why. The names of science alone do not make an argument. In any case, your point, whatever it is, is largely irrelevant here; because you are countering a point that was never made. Remember the title "language and literature".

[SheykAbdullah]

As Unnammable mentioned earlier, while I do disagree with several points that he made, I felt that the use of the term 'illiterate moron' implied a kind of, in his words, intellectual snobbery, as illiterate moron is rarely used to describe someone as anything but your inferior.

In any case, I have another longer posting that states my position in a context more suited to what was actually posted without my inferences, however the internet at my house crashed yesterday afternoon and may not be up until Monday. As such I am forced to use it at my local public library which has never, ironically enough, been a place I am comfortable doing anything in. I think it is the proximity of strange people. In any case I will post what I had intended to at whatever time I can get my internet running.

[SheykAbdullah]

My, my, what a lot I’ve got. I can almost hear the inhalation of forum posters’ breaths from here. First of all, I’ll say that you are barking up the wrong tree (is that expression sufficiently demotic for you?). I’m not Edward Casaubon by the way. My question was in response to your own question using the example of rappers. While I realised that my use of ‘morons’ would imply that I associate rappers with lack of intelligence, I could just as legitimately have written, “Is this any different from asking, “Why should words created by Shakespeare be any better than the words created by a Star Trek scriptwriter or ee cummings?”” My purpose in asking the question wasn’t to deride rappers but to question your implied suggestion that some kind of intellectual snobbery was in evidence. At no point did I say that derogatory words should be cleansed from the language. That’s the job of a moderator. My own complaint, as I think is clear from my first post on this thread, is that new words and expressions are saturating our worlds for the sole purpose of reinforcing the ideological discourses of capitalism.

I may have misinterpreted your original post and saw snobbery where there wasn't any, but I think I may be excused since 'moron' is a rather intense word open to interpretation and it does by its very nature and connotation imply superiority.

And my point regarding the idea of moderation in language, which again may be linked to a misinterpretation of your earlier statements, was to illustrate a likely eventuality arising from the idea of a 'better' anything, and in fact, though you may think I am again digressing I assure you I am not, it is a logical extension of your statements. One that has been adopted based on statements nearly identical to your own and which I will go into further on. There is only a small step from statement into action (now don't construe this statement into meaning something akin to an attack on freedom a speech because it isn't, merely a statement of fact.

In any case, you are not the first to suggest that influences, both internal and external, are combining to weaken the strength of a language. It has been noted on many occasions and the idea has been acted upon, at least in Europe, since the sixteenth or seventeenth century with the establish of the royal academy in Spain to establish a unifying control over Spanish.

Your comments here seem to ignore one fundamental aspect of language – it evolves in a real political and historical context and is subject to historical and political forces. Yes, this has always been the case but never before has so much power to influence been so concentrated in the shape of a relatively small number of agents on such a huge scale. blp is correct above; “'Just do it' is trying as hard as possible to get away from doubt.” It hasn’t entered the language in order to extend our range of possibilities but to diminish them. The reason I chose the Nike example from millions of others was because of something that a student said in a lesson on Hamlet. This particular student was exasperated by what he called Hamlet’s ‘wishy-washiness’. He told me that Hamlet should ‘buy himself a pair of Nikes and just do it’.

Language does evolve and it constantly changes to meet society's needs. Sometimes society evolves in ways we may not like it to, and maybe this evolution may create an essential breakdown in some kind of social intellectual integrity and language must go down with it, but again this is the nature of language.

You say linguistic change on this scale with this precise control has never happened before, but how can we be sure? I would argue something very similiar happened when Christianity first spread over Europe. I would even argue the ultimate effect was the same, it merely took a little but longer. Would you argue that the catechism was an attempt to do anything different than eliminate all possible doubt with a phrase, much like 'just do it'? I would further argue that the church has always been a rather small group controlling large segments of the rest of society, and in profound ways.

My ultimate point is that language, while it may be a thing that impacts our thinking, is ultimately inexorable in its changes. Language is a thing that we can merely observe and rarely can we even explain it. It is an advanceof the collective into the individual mind. In a way it may very well be the thing that creates homogenization in society, but I would still think this to be a bit of an extreme statement.

There are in fact many institutions in this world which have long ago recognized this problem that you are speaking of, namely the dilution of language by globalization and capitalization, and this is why I brought up the idea of a 'linguistic purge'. The most famous example is the academy of France that attempts to correct influences from external sources that dillute, and presumably corrupt, the French langauge. The Academy combats this change by working on dictionaries. The last dictionary was published sometime in the beginning of this century (they have been at this work for a long time) and the current edition is still in the works. They have been laboring at it since the mid thirties and they are now on the letter 'L.' Despite their efforts the French still say 'internet.'

The Arabs also have two councils to regulate grammar and language located in Damascus and Cairo. They have been pretty succesful and as a result the language used in media, including literature, is so different from many of the dialects as to be nearly incomprehensible to the illiterate, especially those in Northern Africa which have the most extreme dialect variations. An example of the sheer worthlessness of their labor is tha there is no sound for a hard 'g' in their 'pristeen' alphabet despite the fact that most Arab dialects do in fact have a hard 'g' and use it in many many words (in fact the Egyptians use the hard 'g' in PLACE of the more normally Arabic 'j' sound). As a result of their labors to keep their language pure from outside influences, these two councils have merely managed to perpetuate something that would otherwise have been a dead dialect, maybe even a dead language. For better or worse, however, their excuse has been they are preserving Arabic as Allah used it in the Qu'ran. A much better excuse than the French have, I think, but we may all differ in our opinions.

[SheykAbdullah]

The reasons for all of this popular heterodoxy from the academic orthodoxy is a simple result from exactly what I have been saying. People are asking 'where's the beef' in academic machinations. Language is first and foremost a means of communicating and communication is accomplished on the shortest most effective means possible, thus despite what Academics think, people will use whatever words are most convenient regardless of who created them, and that will become the reality of language eventually (another proof that language is always primarily a vehicle for communication and anything else is a secondary benefit).

That is why what I have said in my previous post is exactly correct and addresses the point. You seem to be mistaken on three basic conceptions, one being that language was created for something other than to communicate (as a proof of this, no matter how much literature you read/analyze on a daily basis your use of language to communicate is still exponentially greater and more important to your continued physical existence), another being that there can be a 'bad' word (which is only true so long as the word in question is useless for communication and this is not true of the words you refer to they are only perhaps a little ambiguous or a little constrained). The last thing that you are mistaken regarding is that this has never happened before on the level we are experiencing, however while I do acknowledge a certain manipulation of our language by capitalism and globalization I am not convinced it is dumbing it down in the way you are convinced of, rather I think language is if anything shifting paradigm to become closer in meaning to what is popularly needed. In any case that language is deteriorating we can not say for sure until it is done and we can look objectively at the situation, a thing no one on the forum is qualified or capable of doing, especially since our being involved in this forum is indicative of a love of literature that would basically prejudice to a form of English corresponding with out favorite books which are often not current.

As far as the last point about you student's comment I am not convinced that his response was due to any linguistic outlook, but rather simply a social one. He was an American and a young one, maybe he just was impatient and wanted a little action. In essence he was reacting culturally to the work and he just pulled the phrase out as being on the top of his head. Who knows, maybe he would have used Shakespeare instead if it would have fit. Language may shape culture, but it is not the only force. If you look at dialects you will find it is more often social trends that change language than vice versa. If you care to give an example of the latter I would be more than happy to entertain it.

As far as deciding that the works of Shakespeare are better than rap, I still do not agree. I think that there are hordes of people who would say the opposite. I think it all depends on what you look for. Personally, I don't really care for either. I prefer Conrad, Greene, or Waugh.

Of course, at the heart of this discourse is another one that is totally ill-suited for this forum. That question is whether language begets culture, or vice-versa. I whole heartedly believe that instead of it being an issue of one or the other that it is one of both, but I maintain that no linguistic trend has started before a social one, but if you can name one I would be willing to concede my entire position. Linguistic trends can make social trends more influencial, but not the other way around. Before language can adapt it needs a base to work from.

But then again, I am rather demotic I always try to live by an expression of the Attic Greeks, agroikos eimi, ten skafen skafen lego, I am a countryman, I call a tub a tub. I have never even tried to form a preference based on anything more than what interests me.

[The Unnamable]

I’m sorry but I find your arguments totally unconvincing, mainly for precisely the reason that I mentioned above – you seem oblivious of the political/ideological dimension. By focusing on linguistics as a discrete body of knowledge, whose authority you seem to consider primary, you are removing language and literature from the very context that produced it.

Your method of arguing is equally open to question. You wrongly assumed snobbery in my first comments and then somehow presented this as the first step to the gas chambers, which is nonsense. Even in this follow up post you continue in the same vein:

“it is a logical extension of your statements. One that has been adopted based on statements nearly identical to your own and which I will go into further on. There is only a small step from statement into action (now don't construe this statement into meaning something akin to an attack on freedom a speech because it isn't, merely a statement of fact.”

First of all, where are these statements nearly identical to my own? Secondly, you are again moving from what I actually said to warning me that my words could be appropriated by linguistic fascists. Anyone’s words can be appropriated by anyone else for all sorts of nefarious purposes.

Language does evolve and it constantly changes to meet society's needs.

Only an argument utterly devoid of an awareness of ideological forces could see it in such simplistic terms. Was ‘Just Do It’ created out of society’s needs or is it an expression rammed down our throats on a global scale by a profits-hungry organisation with the power and influence to do so?

Despite their efforts the French still say 'internet.'

Exactly. Why is that, do you think?

I am rather demotic I always try to live by an expression of the Attic Greeks, agroikos eimi, ten skafen skafen lego, I am a countryman, I call a tub a tub.

Can you not see the absurdity of this? Most demotic expressions aren’t Attic Greek! As my demotic coalmining father used to say to me after a hard day at the coal face, "cogito ergo sum, son".

As for the rest of what you say, in all honesty I don’t think it’s worth the effort to respond. Until you have read and understood the enormous body of research and academic investigation produced in the last forty years, there is nothing I can say that will prevent you from clinging to your one discourse of, presumably, linguistics and ignoring anything that challenges it. If you are interested to consider some of the work I’ve mentioned, you could try the Language as Control thread - http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=15115 - it offers some kind of introduction to many of the key writers you should consider.

[Regit]

I understand why Unnamable does not want to respond to this body. You are proposing a seemingly academic view regarding linguistics, and your argument is that you should disregard all academic theories. It is frustrating because you make little sense, and even more so because of your ignorance of the role of science and literature. There is a reason why science exists. The existence of science is no less vital to our survival than communication is. Lets break it down:

People will use whatever words are most convenient regardless of who created them, and that will become the reality of language eventually (another proof that language is always primarily a vehicle for communication and anything else is a secondary benefit).

First of all, you cannot use something that you think might happen in the future as proof for your argument. I can easily say: people will all eventualy turn into cows, that is proof of why magic exists. So no, this is not valid proof, unless, of course, you agree that magic really exists and we'll all soon be cows.

The reasons for all of this popular heterodoxy from the academic orthodoxy is a simple result from exactly what I have been saying. People are asking 'where's the beef' in academic machinations. Language is first and foremost a means of communicating and communication is accomplished on the shortest most effective means possible, thus despite what Academics think, people will use whatever words are most convenient regardless of who created them, and that will become the reality of language eventually.

Please, please tell me who is asking "where's the beef in academic machinations?" Just you I pressume. Language is indeed first and foremost a mean of communication. And by distinguishing that function from "academics", you are saying effectively that academics do not use language to communicate. So poetry, history, legal statutes, and all other academic writings are not for the purpose of communication? So they are there for what, to sit on?
I would agree that people try to use language in the way that is most effective; but that does not mean that it has to be the shortest. What if I want to communicate to you how long I can write response to bad arguments without getting tired? I would not write it short now would I.

That is why what I have said in my previous post is exactly correct and addresses the point. You seem to be mistaken on three basic conceptions, one being that language was created for something other than to communicate (as a proof of this, no matter how much literature you read/analyze on a daily basis your use of language to communicate is still exponentially greater and more important to your continued physical existence).

Again, I pressume you meant by this that Unnamable reads and analyses poetry not for the purpose of communication. You are simply incorrect. Communication involves sending and receiving information. When a writer writes poetry, he is sending information through his work. When we read and analyse poetry, we are trying to recieve that information. This is communication. It is also part of what is called literature. Thus, once again, this is not valid proof for the point that you are making. You cannot use an argument as proof for another argument, especially a bad one. It seems you are the one who needs to refine your skill of communication.

Another being that there can be a 'bad' word (which is only true so long as the word in question is useless for communication and this is not true of the words you refer to they are only perhaps a little ambiguous or a little constrained).

That really depends on the context of use. Don't you think that there are different levels of skill and clarity when it comes to communication? If I want to tell you that "the weather in England is 19 degree", and I say "it's hot over here", would that be good communication? No. And would that mean that "hot" and "over here" are bad words in this particular communication? Yes. I know, I know, but they can be use effectively in other cases, so it cannot be concluded that they are bad words. But they can also be used wrongly and are useless in some communication, agreed? So on the same line of argument it cannot be concluded that they are good words either, can it? And so how often these words are good or bad as far as communication is concerned depends completely on how they are used in each case, no? And talking about literary value of communication, there also can be good and bad employments of words. Finally, we get to my point: rappers do not know how to communicate literature as well as Shakespeare, ok?

The last thing that you are mistaken regarding is that this has never happened before on the level we are experiencing, however while I do acknowledge a certain manipulation of our language by capitalism and globalization I am not convinced it is dumbing it down in the way you are convinced of, rather I think language is if anything shifting paradigm to become closer in meaning to what is popularly needed. In any case that language is deteriorating we can not say for sure until it is done and we can look objectively at the situation, a thing no one on the forum is qualified or capable of doing, especially since our being involved in this forum is indicative of a love of literature that would basically prejudice to a form of English corresponding with out favorite books which are often not current.

Communication, communnication I hear. And 'proof' I hear. This paragraph of yours is harder to understand than Hamlet. However, I have come to notice a few things. The effects of globalisation, of capitalism were mentioned. The shifting of paradigms, the deterioration of language were also mentioned. They are matters that I imagine complex and interesting; and my mind began to wonder how I can understand them. Meanwhile you added that having a love for literature is a handicap and makes one less qualified to analyse the complexity of language. It's mind blowing. So you are saynig that to understand language, and to know the future of language... we should read less? I think I'd rather keep on reading and be clueless.
But I wish you luck on your quest.

[SheykAbdullah]

I understand why Unnamable does not want to respond to this body. You are proposing a seemingly academic view regarding linguistics, and your argument is that you should disregard all academic theories.

I am NOT saying that we should disregard all academic theories. When I use the term Academics I refer not to the process of thought, but to the persons involved in Academia. I may point out that I am reiterating academic points in the science of linguistics.

I disagree with the idea held in common by many Academics, and espoused here, that the changes we are undergoing in our language today in anyway shape or form is destroying it. Rather I believe its paradigms are being readjusted.

First of all, you cannot use something that you think might happen in the future as proof for your argument. I can easily say: people will all eventualy turn into cows, that is proof of why magic exists. So no, this is not valid proof, unless, of course, you agree that magic really exists and we'll all soon be cows.

My use of the future tense here is not in order to make a prediction, but a statement. People WILL, DO USE, and HAVE USED can all be spliced into that sentence.

Please, please tell me who is asking "where's the beef in academic machinations?" Just you I pressume. Language is indeed first and foremost a mean of communication. And by distinguishing that function from "academics", you are saying effectively that academics do not use language to communicate. So poetry, history, legal statutes, and all other academic writings are not for the purpose of communication? So they are there for what, to sit on?
I would agree that people try to use language in the way that is most effective; but that does not mean that it has to be the shortest. What if I want to communicate to you how long I can write response to bad arguments without getting tired? I would not write it short now would I.

The truth is it is not just me who is wondering exactly what purpose the Academies on language serves, many people do precisely because they so often seem to be so ridiculous. The word Academy in this sense, and it is my fault I should have capitalized the word, refers to the establishment of a regulatory commission over a certain area of knowledge or skill, not to a particular person or school of thought.

I have never said that communications must be conducted in the shortest way possible, only that they must be effective in communicating meaning.

Again, I pressume you meant by this that Unnamable reads and analyses poetry not for the purpose of communication. You are simply incorrect. Communication involves sending and receiving information. When a writer writes poetry, he is sending information through his work. When we read and analyse poetry, we are trying to recieve that information. This is communication. It is also part of what is called literature. Thus, once again, this is not valid proof for the point that you are making. You cannot use an argument as proof for another argument, especially a bad one. It seems you are the one who needs to refine your skill of communication.

Analyzing poetry is indeed a form of communication, but I have not been speaking of poetry, rather of more obtuse methods of communication, as I thought everyone else had. Advertising is not often written in rhyme, meter, or verse, and I thought that the change of language due to media influences was the point of this discourse.

I think we would both agree in any case that the language of poetry is different than the language of everyday conversation and that if you tried to speak in verse in an everyday context the reaction you recieve may be a little less than serious. As a result a living language will NOT shape itself according to the whims of any art with as limited a utilization of language (limited meaning that the language of poetry does not translate its usefulness to any other means of communication)

That really depends on the context of use. Don't you think that there are different levels of skill and clarity when it comes to communication? If I want to tell you that "the weather in England is 19 degree", and I say "it's hot over here", would that be good communication? No. And would that mean that "hot" and "over here" are bad words in this particular communication? Yes. I know, I know, but they can be use effectively in other cases, so it cannot be concluded that they are bad words. But they can also be used wrongly and are useless in some communication, agreed? So on the same line of argument it cannot be concluded that they are good words either, can it? And so how often these words are good or bad as far as communication is concerned depends completely on how they are used in each case, no? And talking about literary value of communication, there also can be good and bad employments of words. Finally, we get to my point: rappers do not know how to communicate literature as well as Shakespeare, ok?

You are making the point I have been. (Though I would say simply saying 'It's hot over here' would be a valid description of things and would communicate the idea you intend effectively) A word is not bad unless it fails to communicate the intended idea. There are no 'better' words either, merely words of greater or lesser precision, which can each be deployed in different circumstances to provide the required shades of meaning.

Communication, communnication I hear. And 'proof' I hear. This paragraph of yours is harder to understand than Hamlet. However, I have come to notice a few things. The effects of globalisation, of capitalism were mentioned. The shifting of paradigms, the deterioration of language were also mentioned. They are matters that I imagine complex and interesting; and my mind began to wonder how I can understand them. Meanwhile you added that having a love for literature is a handicap and makes one less qualified to analyse the complexity of language. It's mind blowing. So you are saynig that to understand language, and to know the future of language... we should read less? I think I'd rather keep on reading and be clueless.
But I wish you luck on your quest.

No, I said that it is impossible for any one of us on this forum to accurately judge the shift in paradigms in modern English because we are so intimately involved with our own preferred versions of the language. It would be like a gymnast judging the performance of a competer on the parallel bars. No matter how unbiased he tries to be he will ultimately find some fault in his competitor's actions that give himself the advantage.

I have NEVER said that anyone was incapable of understanding the complexities of language.

As for the Unnamable's post I have read these books and articles. I do not disagree that language is an instrument that can be used to control the populace and shape ideas that have already been formed. I am not arguing this point. I am merely protesting the idea that there is a 'better word' in any sense. My only point has been this, that language is a means for communication and behaves in a pragmatic way and that anything (grammatical or lexical) that conveys an effective meaning is 'good' as far as the system is concerned.

I may ask one point because maybe I have been confused on this 'better word' point, so could someone please give me an example of a 'bad', 'good' or 'better' word?

[Regit]

A few things:

1.

When I use the term Academics I refer not to the process of thought, but to the persons involved in Academia.

The word Academy in this sense, and it is my fault I should have capitalized the word, refers to the establishment of a regulatory commission over a certain area of knowledge or skill, not to a particular person or school of thought.

So which or whom are you talking about?


and

The word Academy in this sense, and it is my fault I should have capitalized the word.

No, actually you said:

Academics think, people will use whatever words are most convenient regardless of who created them, and that will become the reality of language eventually.

2.

People WILL, DO USE, and HAVE USED can all be spliced into that sentence.

...This one?

People will use whatever words are most convenient regardless of who created them, and that will become the reality of language eventually.

I think this is a slight breakdown in communication.




3.

I have never said that communications must be conducted in the shortest way possible, only that they must be effective in communicating meaning.

So what's this?

communication is accomplished on the shortest most effective means possible.

4.

Analyzing poetry is indeed a form of communication, but I have not been speaking of poetry, rather of more obtuse methods of communication, as I thought everyone else had.

I'm sorry. I guess I was thrown off by the mention of literature here:

no matter how much literature you read/analyze on a daily basis your use of language to communicate is still exponentially greater and more important to your continued physical existence

And I thought that poetry was part of literature.



5.

Advertising is not often written in rhyme, meter, or verse, and I thought that the change of language due to media influences was the point of this discourse.

And I thought that this was about language and literature




6.

I think we would both agree in any case that the language of poetry is different than the language of everyday conversation and that if you tried to speak in verse in an everyday context the reaction you recieve may be a little less than serious.

I will agree with this point, only if you will agree that, vice versa, using everyday language in literature, you might not be taken seriously either.




7.

limited meaning that the language of poetry does not translate its usefulness to any other means of communication

Sounds like something that would come from someone who has never read a poem completely.




8.

No, I said that it is impossible for any one of us on this forum to accurately judge the shift in paradigms in modern English because we are so intimately involved with our own preferred versions of the language. It would be like a gymnast judging the performance of a competer on the parallel bars. No matter how unbiased he tries to be he will ultimately find some fault in his competitor's actions that give himself the advantage.

Oh I see. So it is better that we don't get intimately involved with literature? Wouldn't that involve reading less?





9.

I may ask one point because maybe I have been confused on this 'better word' point, so could someone please give me an example of a 'bad', 'good' or 'better' word?

Yes, you may. Here's some flash backs:

'Good' and, therefore, 'better' are used here to describe the literary point of view

And talking about literary value of communication, there also can be good and bad employments of words.

That's correct, as oppose to the bad words invented by other sources. I was contrasting between good and bad literature. By no mean a carefully thought out example, but it demonstrates the point well I think.

Want a hint? Key word: literature. I think you can find yourself some examples from here.

Here is what I suggest: read what other people write and try to understand it; and be consistent with what you say yourself. I think those are the key skills of communication, which is vital to survival remember?

[SheykAbdullah]

1.

When I said Academics I am referring to the class of people concerned with constructing rules and philisophies to explore and/or effect the world around them. These may be good rules and philosophies or bad ones.

Academy is refering, in a realistic sense, those organizations like the Académie française or the two grammar councils in Damascus and Cairo.

In the second sentence I stand by what I said. Regardless of what academics think, both the unaffiliated ones and the ones involved in the various regulatory committees of languages, people will use whatever words are most convenient regardless of who created them, and that will become the reality of language eventually.

2.

No breakdown at all. Eventually simply highlights that language is slow in transition, but the everyday use of a word will eventually either create a new one or shift its meaning. Period. No prediction involved, it is merely a statement of fact.

3.

Perhaps I have misspoken and I am sorry that I did. I have perhaps written too many words and in my loquatiousness confused certain basic points, but unfortunately rambling is something I am prone to. I have misused shortest to mean efficient. I have never said I was the world's best communicator.

4.

communicate in the second sentence should require no explanation, but maybe I have again been unclear. The kind of communication refered to here is everyday inter-personal communication. It is this kind of communication which predominates language.

5.

As to this I must admit that I have been caught up in my own thoughts and forgot the title.

6.

Of course, you are absolutely right. Every communication takes place in its own realm which is normally seperate from others.

7.

Not at all. However I would like you to speak in meter, rhyme, and conceits sometime tomorrow and see how clearly you are understood. The thought process of poetry may assist you in other realms of communication but its style will not.

8.

No, no, you are again misunderstanding me. In truth, no one is qualified to judge modern English's paradigm changes because we are all involved with it, but us especially because we are involved in both it and another form of English.

In order to have a proper way to judge English's paradigms you must be removed from it, like any other scientist. We are too involved with it and its predecesors to judge it in an objective manner. It is no different than saying we are incapable of judging modern America objectively. (Note that I am saying its paradigm shifts. We can understand objectively its physical characteristics, meaning its style, grammar, lexical elements, etc.)

9.

Again I am sorry, but I do not acknowledge that literature creates better words. Could you give me an example of individual words? Maybe this will help me see better.

[The Unnamable]

"The difference between the right word and the almost right word is really a large matter- it's the difference between a lightning bug and the lightning."
Mark Twain Letter to George Bainton

"A powerful agent is the right word. Whenever we come upon one of those intensely right words in a book or a newspaper the resulting effect is physical as well as spiritual, and electrically prompt."
Mark Twain Essay on William Dean Howells

[SheykAbdullah]

Those are quotes about the efficacy of the right word, but still not the words themselves. I am looking for a better word itself. What those quotes tell me is that ANY word is a better word, just so long as it is used in its proper context.

[The Unnamable]

Look at what I wrote, please:

The words ‘created’ by Shakespeare are ‘better’ because he’s a better writer - he’s particularly skilled in their use.

Obviously it depends on what you mean by ‘better’ but surely Shakespeare’s contributions have enriched the language and therefore broadened the range of expression available? Thanks to Shakespeare, our linguistic world is bigger.

Why do you think I put ‘created’ and ‘better’ in inverted commas? Why did I also go on to say that, “Obviously it depends on what you mean by ‘better’”? I have never been obtuse enough to argue that one word is, per se, ‘better’ than another. That would be nonsense. However, I do believe that some words are BETTER IN A PARTICULAR CONTEXT. You claim to disagree with this:

I am merely protesting the idea that there is a 'better word' in any sense.

Now, how about you demonstrate your understanding of the books and articles I mentioned by considering the role of ideology?

[SheykAbdullah]

There is no question that when one says 'he is warm', and that is the truth, than the word 'warm' is correct in this sense. You could not say 'hot' because they mean two different sensations. To use one in the place of the other is wrong because it represents miscommunication. Thus it is not a question of 'better' in a sense of more fitting, but possibly 'better' used in a sense of right vs wrong. I had assumed you meant better in a qualitative sense. Just as, to use my own mistake, I misused 'the shortest path possible.' To me this means efficient, but it was an incorrect use of the word to fit my meaning. 'Shortest' is not a worse word than 'efficient' here, it is just wrong.

When I say no word is better than any other in any sense I mean in regards to where it was taken from. No word is 'better' because a great writer created it or because someoe else created it, nor do writers create 'better' words. They just create words.

[Union Jack]

No word is 'better' because a great writer created it or because someoe else created it, nor do writers create 'better' words. They just create words.

I would agree with that point. 'Superior' origins do not denote 'superior' worth. This goes for ideas as well.

[Regit]

I just came back from my sanctuary Unnamable. But I'd better go back there straight away.