Language and literature

There is a thread started earlier discussing the significance of the size of a vocabulary. It gave me a few questions. It seems to me that the development of language goes hand in hand with the development of scientific and cultural collectives belonging to that language and their literatures. Vice versa, it must also be that the growth of a language is fed by its bad usage. I want to ask: as it is arguable that the quality of a literature is a reflection of the quality of the vocabulary of its language, is the quality of the vocabulary of a language a reflection of how well it is employed and has been employed? I read that Shakespeare was credited for at least 1000 new words in the Oxford dictionary. Surely that is better for the English language than words invented by rappers and ...stuff :). Or has the trend been changed?

How does the good employment of a language affect its development?

What do you mean by

Quote:

---

How does the good employment of a language affect its development?

---

Do you mean like the whats it called oh yes basterdisation of the English languge, ie words been given new meaning that is the opposite if not tottally unrelated to the tradional meaning until the tradional meaning is lost under the new one. Like with gay and queer ?
Or do you mean that if languge is used violently the entire languge develops a violent trend that is reflected in the cultutre and vise versa ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightshade

What do you mean by
Do you mean like the whats it called oh yes basterdisation of the English languge, ie words been given new meaning that is the opposite if not totally unrelated to the tradional meaning until the tradional meaning is lost under the new one. Like with gay and queer?

---

Yes, that's the examples of the bad usage that I was mentioning.

Words can be given new meanings also through scientific usage, e.g. 'nationalism' means something different to political scientists as it does for people who do not study philosophy, or 'differentiation' means something very ...different to mathematicians. And I also meant to talk about new words being invented, which I can't think of an example, by great works of literature. In other words, about the way that I think a language should develop. Like the boom of literature and art of the Renaissance, or during the Napoleonic period; they bears the characteristics of the change of mood and attitude of the time. Is that a proof that a development in culture and science leads to a development in literature and, thus, language?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Or do you mean that if language is used violently the entire language develops a violent trend that is reflected in the culture and vice versa?

---

Sorry Night, I don't quite know what you mean here.

Well say we say that a particular group of people say yobs ( apolgies if you are one this is a gross generalisation fo the sake of explaining :rolleyes: ) anyway say we say these yobs have increisngly violent and aggressive behaviours in everything they do. basically there cultural norms begin to shift and even there languge becomes more aggressive and nasty.
So languge is reflecting the social change.
OR
Languge becomes more aggressive as catharsis at first but gradually the acceptance of violence in languge lead sto the shifting of cultural norms and eventually this social group becomes more and more aggressive.
that is languge leading to sociaql change.
Ithink thats the idea behing PC-ness that is if we moderae languge and intolerance in languge eventually the implicated soical values and ideolgys associated with certain terms that you are no longer allowed to say will lead to a wider social shift of acceptance and less xenophobia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

There is a thread started earlier discussing the significance of the size of a vocabulary. It gave me a few questions. It seems to me that the development of language goes hand in hand with the development of scientific and cultural collectives belonging to that language and their literatures. Vice versa, it must also be that the growth of a language is fed by its bad usage. I want to ask: as it is arguable that the quality of a literature is a reflection of the quality of the vocabulary of its language, is the quality of the vocabulary of a language a reflection of how well it is employed and has been employed? I read that Shakespeare was credited for at least 1000 new words in the Oxford dictionary. Surely that is better for the English language than words invented by rappers and ...stuff :). Or has the trend been changed?

How does the good employment of a language affect its development?

---

Regit, you mentioned about quality, but then you gave Shakespeare 1000 words as example. I"m sure we agree that quality does not always mean quantity, so I'm assuming that you were saying that all those 1000 words are...good words?! And I don't really understand with what you mean by "words invented by rappers and...stuffs". I mean terms in study of rape or rapist, for example..., weren't they invented by say, experts in criminology or pyschologist or sociologist?

I'm trying to be simple here, but I think the development of language are influence by both bad and good words used in that language. Somewhat there are somekind of balance within. But then, when the use of certain bad words beginning to increase, then I suppose, we need to see an outside factor because language is actually just one of the products of society/human civilization.

(Oh, I Hope this is not another morning babbling of mine ;) )

Certainly an extensive word bank produces "finer" pieces of lierature. Also, many people believe that languages with an increased sensitivity to subtle differences in verb difference, such as French, produce much finer literature. These people ( James Joyce was one of them) believe that english is constrictive and limited as far as what it can express. Thoughts?

Both this thread and blp’s on advertising will hit the same barrier on this forum – the inability of many people to understand/acknowledge the extent to which the very fabric of our social being is woven from the ideological discourses of capitalism. Language is a living thing – it evolves almost organically and it’s pointless to insist on preserving the status quo by rejecting all forms of 'incorrect' usage. Yes, Shakespeare introduced many ‘new’ words and phrases into the language. He did so without the advantage of modern multi-national corporations. No writer today (with the possible exception of JK Rowling and her entourage of publicists) has the same capacity to spatter our language with newly minted expressions as these huge companies or the global machinery of modern media. So while I agree (to an extent) with those who say that language has the elasticity to accommodate new uses, the playing field is far from level. Nike can make far more people familiar with ‘Just Do It’ than you or I could. The most influential of all, though, is the Media (primarily western media). It positions us as consumers and makes certain ideas literally unthinkable. So I would say the development of mass media communication is having a significant effect on language and language use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

So while I agree (to an extent) with those who say that language has the elasticity to accommodate new uses, the playing field is far from level. Nike can make far more people familiar with ‘Just Do It’ than you or I could. The most influential of all, though, is the Media (primarily western media). It positions us as consumers and makes certain ideas literally unthinkable. So I would say the development of mass media communication is having a significant effect on language and language use.

---

Interesting to read up, and that we are headed back to your thread on word count. Those threads were not exhausted, just left hanging. Just on this topic of advertisers; tools come into a play a lot, and for the reasons we know, money - which also means ability. Nike was able to create 'Just Do It' with a slick sexy tv campaign. The phrase was around long before Nike syringed it. So, I agree, the more money, then more multi-media, the more impact, and the more likely a new word, phrase, book, movie will bite, and even a political notion will survive. Shakespeare was creative with themes, and marketing at the same time. Julius Ceasar was not an original idea, he plucked it, turned it, made it dramatic, pallatable and exciting to sell it. I wonder next... must marketing always be married to creativity if its to gain widespread acceptance, take its place.... just as new words tend to take hold in society if enough proportion of that population adopts it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

Certainly an extensive word bank produces "finer" pieces of lierature. Also, many people believe that languages with an increased sensitivity to subtle differences in verb difference, such as French, produce much finer literature. These people ( James Joyce was one of them) believe that english is constrictive and limited as far as what it can express. Thoughts?

---

I think it fair to say, and mostly because of the threads here where its been discussed, level of expression is not necessarily increased with word count (tools) alone, though of course, it helps if it can be applied. An ability to use and adapt a lower word count can be more potent. Languages with a higher word count than English, due to being older languages and containing higher definition (finer, as you mentioned), only provide finer definition, while English can have several meanings attached to the same word - as an example. And again, as someone pointed out, some languages have an almost built-in mechanism for inventing new definition (words) on-the-fly. Another point, while 'a' writer may have a huge toolbox of vocobularly to draw on, his expressed expression is still limited by the capacity of his audience to actually understand him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Well say we say that a particular group of people say yobs ( apolgies if you are one this is a gross generalisation fo the sake of explaining :rolleyes: )

---

Did you say, 'yobs' ? :D
I am not wearing my Dennis the Menace shirt for no reason, ya know.

Spoken language is organic. New items grow when they grow. Sometimes newly coined words catch on and sometimes they don't. I don't see anything wrong with new words, or new meanings for old words, of whatever sort, created by anyone, but that doesn't mean that I have to use the new words or meanings. I specifically rebel against some new definitions, beause they didn't produce a clearer understanding. One example is the redefining of "gender" to mean several things related to sexual identity. I rebel against it, because it requires an explanatory phrase to set the meaning in a particular situation; the explanatory phrase without the extraneous word would be preferable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

I read that Shakespeare was credited for at least 1000 new words in the Oxford dictionary. Surely that is better for the English language than words invented by rappers and ...stuff :). Or has the trend been changed?

How does the good employment of a language affect its development?

---

Why should the words created by Shakespeare be any better than the words created by a rapper? Or, as someone else pointed out, why is it bad to have derrogatory terms in a language?

Language and therefore words do not and never have existed for aesthetic, intellectual, poetic, or philisophic reasons. Language has always existed and continues to exist as a means of communication. Anything else is a superfluous use, even if enlightening and pleasurable.

To go back to the 'queer' and 'gay' example, if we are going to argue that an increasing number of words in a language improves its effectiveness and 'development' it is plain that using 'queer' to refer to a homosexual normally means both that someone is gay and that the person speaking of the individual dislikes homosexuals, whereas 'gay' simply states that the referred person is a homosexual and nothing else.

The urge to purge the 'negative' or 'inelegant' words from our vocabulary is as great a mistake as to create new ones. I am not saying that these words should be used, but they were created to fulfill a purpose, and by better understanding these words, what they mean, who uses them, and how they came to be we understand our society better. Thus to assume that there is a 'good employment' of language is a mistake, rather there are only stylistic deployments of lanaguage.

There are several levels of language. Spoken language is different from written language. And then, you also have differences. A posh guy and a farmer won't speak and write the same. James Joyce's language is for example very rich but it's sometimes hard to understand. For Shakespeare, of course he invented lots of new words but nowadays his way of speaking is old english. Even the grammar is different.
Rappers have their own words and things are like that. The language has to change because it's living, it's how people express themselves. New words appear and some other disappear, that's the rule of the language... otherwise we would all speak and write latin nowadays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by subterranean

I'm assuming that you were saying that all those 1000 words are...good 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by subterranean

And I don't really understand with what you mean by "words invented by rappers and...stuffs". I mean terms in study of rape or rapist, for example..., weren't they invented by say, experts in criminology or pyschologist or sociologist?

---

I said rappers, not rapists. Rappers are performers of rap music. RAP=Rhythm And Poetry, but the poetry bit seems to have died. I don't mean to include all rap music; but I do look at most of the new stuffs very sceptically. Just an example of bad usage of language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “SheykAbdullah”

Why should the words created by Shakespeare be any better than the words created by a rapper? Or, as someone else pointed out, why is it bad to have derrogatory terms in a language?

---

Is this any different from asking, “Why should words created by Shakespeare be any better than the words created by a semi-literate moron?” 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. The limits of our language are the limits of our world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “SheykAbdullah”

Language and therefore words do not and never have existed for aesthetic, intellectual, poetic, or philisophic reasons. Language has always existed and continues to exist as a means of communication. Anything else is a superfluous use, even if enlightening and pleasurable.

---

I disagree. Firstly, I don’t understand why the aesthetic, intellectual, poetic or philosophic are considered unrelated to communication. Is all language merely functional and transactional? That’s a strange position for someone on a Literature Forum to adopt. Secondly, you seem to be implying that this basic, functional level is the core to which all other uses are added as mere ornament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

Language is a living thing – it evolves almost organically and it’s pointless to insist on preserving the status quo by rejecting all forms of 'incorrect' usage... So while I agree (to an extent) with those who say that language has the elasticity to accommodate new uses, the playing field is far from level. Nike can make far more people familiar with ‘Just Do It’ than you or I could. The most influential of all, though, is the Media (primarily western media). It positions us as consumers and makes certain ideas literally unthinkable. So I would say the development of mass media communication is having a significant effect on language and language use.

---

I would not dare suggesting whether a usage of a language is correct or incorrect. Nor would I dare rejecting a part of our society. I would, however, form an opinion of whether a usage is a good or a bad one (eventhough given that my own usage has much to improve). I understand the impact of the media; the speed of its growth, fed by the capitalist ideology, overwhelms its creators' capacity to contain it. And with the help of technology, media and commerce become the driving forces of international relations. They take over from even cultural and political engines; and they force globalisation to happen too quickly when other aspects of society have not had a chance to be ready. And they swallow everything in their path and take them hostage, including languages.
But I am talking here in literature's point of view. Is a media's usage of languages, however powerful or valid, a good one? This sentiment reminds me of a poem you posted in the Poem of the Week thread; a paragraph made up of seven sentences. Do you think that it is good how the media might affect literature, in the way that this poem describes?
The reason why the media behaves the way it does is because most people cannot take more than 10 words of information at a time. And short messages that everyone can relate to immediately are more cost-effective. But it does not mean that everything the media produces is automatically bad (Btw, I think that "just do it", and other Nike golf commercials are actually quite good usage. :D) Within the usage by media, I think that there are good and bad literature. I fully acknowledge the power of commerce, and the power of the capitalist ideology, but I still feel that it is right to criticise and discourage its bad literature when it is produced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

Is this any different from asking, “Why should words created by Shakespeare be any better than the words created by a semi-literate moron?” 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. The limits of our language are the limits of our world.

---

Ah! I need not add anything more here SheykAbdullah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

The reason why the media behaves the way it does is because most people cannot take more than 10 words of information at a time. And short messages that everyone can relate to immediately are more cost-effective.

---

Thats actually not true. The theory is people need to interact with the advert sooo they have to Keep it simple to reach a larger target audiance. If they have highbrow adverts they risk alienating a large part of the audiance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

Do you think that it is good how the media might affect literature, in the way that this poem describes?

---

No, I think it debases language to the level where the only issues that matter are those relating to our rights as consumers. In the post on Advertising, blp mentioned a Piero Della Francesca Nativity. He said, “It's not just that the painting is beautiful. An equally beautiful painting promoting breakfast cereal would be absurd where the Piero is idiosyncratic, kind, serious, thoughtful and compelling.”

What he’s talking about here (I think) is the same sort of feeling that I get when I look at those incredible late self-portraits by Rembrandt, where he looks how I feel, especially on a Monday morning when I have to reinhabit the husk in preparation for another skirmish with the forces of vacuousness. There is no attempt to package a message, to make the painting suitable for consumption. They aren’t selling me anything - not even the truth they depict. It’s there if you see it, that’s all. He might be painting to sell it to some wealthy and vain patron but he doesn’t adapt his art to speak to the lowest common denominator. If it doesn’t interest them, that’s their loss.

If the guiding principle behind the production of all texts is simply to sell the maximum amount of garbage to the greatest number of idiots, then the complexity and perplexity of human existence is lost.

Yes. It probably comes back to that Keats quote I began the advertising thread with: 'We hate poetry that has a palpable design on us.' The attempt to manipulate is the degradation of language. Ambiguity or undecidability are not just Derridean invention, they're fundamental in any rich use of language. 'Just do it' is trying as hard as possible to get away from doubt.

Another interesting change in language use was pointed out to me recently: memory, save, search. In only babout ten years, these words have taken on new, lesser meanings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

Another interesting change in language use was pointed out to me recently: memory, save, search. In only babout ten years, these words have taken on new, lesser meanings.

---

Don't you mean, 'more' ? Each of those words are way more ambigious than they ever were before. Or, do you mean lesser intrinsic value due to their spread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

Is this any different from asking, “Why should words created by Shakespeare be any better than the words created by a semi-literate moron?” 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. The limits of our language are the limits of our world.

---

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.

After all, how is a word 'better'? Is it better because it is more intellectually involved and shows more knowledge of how language works? You need look no farther than floccinaucinihilipilification to prove my point. This word is eminently scholarly; it's roots in Latin are impeccable and the word itself was created by an Oxford Don. However it's length and complication makes it generally useless, where as (and he may or may not be an illiterate moron depending on your political stance) Rush Limbaugh's femi-nazi, while delightfully bourgeois and simple, is incredibly effective as a word despite its relative lack of sophistication.

In the end are 'fancy' Latin/Greek cognates better than Cockney Rhyming slang? At the very least the Latin/Greek amalgamations are less interesting to me, and I would certainly not consider myself an 'illiterate moron.'

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

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.

As far as the assertion that Shakespeare broadened our language by creating words I certainly agree, and it is a good thing he did so, but as you have brought up before, maybe someone else with less fame had already invented words that were 'better' than his and meant the same thing that his did, but due to a lack of personal popularity and media influence they were not adopted. After all, we can all make up words. It's part of our right as speakers of a language. If they are incomprehensible then and only then are they bad, and the intellectual and the plebe alike can be incomprehensible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

I disagree. Firstly, I don’t understand why the aesthetic, intellectual, poetic or philosophic are considered unrelated to communication. Is all language merely functional and transactional? That’s a strange position for someone on a Literature Forum to adopt. Secondly, you seem to be implying that this basic, functional level is the core to which all other uses are added as mere ornament.

---

All language is ultimately, at its roots, functional and transactional. It can be used for other purposes, surely, and that is why I like literature, but the point of language is none of these; knowing that painting originated as a ritual to capture the spirit of an animal in a religion I don't believe in doesn't impact my ability to appreciate my favorite artist's completely secular work. Most hunters would never kill someone, but they use a rifle despite the fact that it was originated to be used in war. The end product sometimes has little to do with where a thing originated, but its origin does not necesarily diminish the things ultimate appreciation.

As for the second point, language did indeed emerge from a simple, basic core of pure communication. Man did not create a system of communication to explore his inmost feelings, rather he created it like the apes of today use language, to communicate threats, establish social bonds, and, with our increased sophistication of language over time, to coordinate raids and hunts.

It was not until probably long after that time that our ancestors settled down into using language to tell stories or write poetry. If you need any more evidence of this, you can look to people who only ever master the basics of language. Take the 'wild children' or autistics as an example, people that for one reason or another are incapable of obtaining a sophisticated grasp of linguistic nuances. These people are relegated to using language on a simple level, and they do not tell stories, rather they survive with what little communicative power they have.

As to the first sentance (and forgive me for addressing them out of order) I agree. These uses of languages are an aspect of communication. Howver there is a problem with the discussion of linguistics. Many people forget that linguistics is one science and philosophy another. I would never describe philosophy in linguistics terms and thus linguistics need not be defined in philosophical terms. There was a time when the science of linguistics was unadvanced and unresearched, and then, due to a lack of its own scientific standing, it could be described philisophically, just as Aristotle at one time described biology philisophically, but the time for these descriptions has ended and now the two sciences stand on their own and should be treated as such.

The aesthetic and the philisophical stand as some of the most intricate and beautiful forms of communication that language can express, as would be expected by the definition of 'aesthetic,' but these things are not in any way, shape, or form the reason for the existence of language, nor an excuse for it. They are merely forms of communication that language can take. They do not encapsulate langauge, rather, in a way, language can be said to encapsulate them, though admiteedly not wholly. A ship travels over the ocean carrying oil, but we wouldn't say that the ocean exists as a transportation method for oil, would we? It's use as such is merely a tertiary benefit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackyyyy

Don't you mean, 'more' ? Each of those words are way more ambigious than they ever were before. Or, do you mean lesser intrinsic value due to their spread?

---

They're more ambiguous in that they've been given new meanings to add to the old ones, but the new meanings are pretty banal compared to the old ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shortbread

There are several levels of language. Spoken language is different from written language. And then, you also have differences. A posh guy and a farmer won't speak and write the same. James Joyce's language is for example very rich but it's sometimes hard to understand. For Shakespeare, of course he invented lots of new words but nowadays his way of speaking is old english. Even the grammar is different.
Rappers have their own words and things are like that. The language has to change because it's living, it's how people express themselves. New words appear and some other disappear, that's the rule of the language... otherwise we would all speak and write latin nowadays.

---

mutantur omnia nos et mutamur in illis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

They're more ambiguous in that they've been given new meanings to add to the old ones, but the new meanings are pretty banal compared to the old ones.

---

I invent stuff, so for me, these words are critical. Rarely do I see a new word created. I have seen amalgamations of words to distinguish (for example) memory, data, save, etc, from one type to another, and more especially in languages other than English. Interestingly, for many inventions, words are stolen, rather than new ones created. Maybe that is the process, people are too darn lazy to go invent a new one, and especially in English, to be quick here, we use a word that approximates the task. Finer definition (which Union Jack moved to), or accuracy, would increase word count dramatically. Advertising creates new words all the time, interestingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackyyyy

I invent stuff, so for me, these words are critical. Rarely do I see a new word created. I have seen amalgamations of words to distinguish (for example) memory, data, save, etc, from one type to another, and more especially in languages other than English. Interestingly, for many inventions, words are stolen, rather than new ones created. Maybe that is the process, people are too darn lazy to go invent a new one, and especially in English, to be quick here, we use a word that approximates the task. Finer definition (which Union Jack moved to), or accuracy, would increase word count dramatically. Advertising creates new words all the time, interestingly.

---

This is totally frivolous, but I'm reminded of the Simpson's episode where, in a flashback to the eighties, one of Homer's friends starts talking about how the next big thing's going to be this thing called the internet - by which he means the netting just starting to be sewn into the inside of swimming trunks.

Interesting stuff. The abstract notion produced by the use of a 'word' evolves to form another meaning, a new word. But, we don't always create a new word. I just asked myself, what is wrong with a finer word definition, if it increases accuracy - mean a lot less mistakes, reduce costs, overhead, and word spillage, etc. I have no problem learning more words, and I can pull anything I want out of my swimming trunks if I need to... however.. maybe we would need more letters in our alphabet.

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.

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’.

A lot of what you say is both tactically questionable and irrelevant to what I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “SheykAbdullah”

The words created by Shakespeare and 'an illiterate moron' are going to have different basic ends,

---

This assumes we can decide on the ‘ends’ of both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “SheykAbdullah”

but the same ultimate importance.

---

To whom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “SheykAbdullah”

It is expected that a 'moron' won't create a word to express his inmost love,

---

Expected by whom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “SheykAbdullah”

After all, how is a word 'better'?

---

It was originally your choice of word, not mine. Why didn’t you define it then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “SheykAbdullah”

Is it better because it is more intellectually involved and shows more knowledge of how language works? You need look no farther than floccinaucinihilipilification to prove my point. This word is eminently scholarly; it's roots in Latin are impeccable and the word itself was created by an Oxford Don. However it's length and complication makes it generally useless, where as (and he may or may not be an illiterate moron depending on your political stance) Rush Limbaugh's femi-nazi, while delightfully bourgeois and simple, is incredibly effective as a word despite its relative lack of sophistication.

---

Of course, I was saying that BIG words are clever. This was not what I either said or implied. Tut tut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “SheykAbdullah”

In the end are 'fancy' Latin/Greek cognates better than Cockney Rhyming slang? At the very least the Latin/Greek amalgamations are less interesting to me, and I would certainly not consider myself an 'illiterate moron.'

---

How about providing a few more examples to counter an argument I wasn’t putting forward?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “SheykAbdullah”

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

---

Oops, I see you have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “SheykAbdullah”

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.

---

It just gets better! Now I am an advocate of the linguistic equivalent of ethnic cleansing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “SheykAbdullah”

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.

---

Hysterica Passio! Cue Tomorrow Belongs To Me. My Struggle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “SheykAbdullah”

As far as the assertion that Shakespeare broadened our language by creating words I certainly agree,

---

So the bits I actually did say, you agree with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “SheykAbdullah”

and it is a good thing he did so, but as you have brought up before, maybe someone else with less fame had already invented words that were 'better' than his and meant the same thing that his did, but due to a lack of personal popularity and media influence they were not adopted. After all, we can all make up words.

---

From a dwindling inventory of possibilities, thanks to global homogenisation. As for being free to create our own words, “"Are birds free from the chains of the skyway?"”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “SheykAbdullah”

All language is ultimately, at its roots, functional and transactional. It can be used for other purposes, surely, and that is why I like literature, but the point of language is none of these;

---

Sorry, the point of language… as decided by…?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “SheykAbdullah”

knowing that painting originated as a ritual… not necesarily diminish the things ultimate appreciation.

---

Sorry, you’ve gone again. All I’m getting is static.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “SheykAbdullah”

As for the second point, language did indeed emerge from a simple, basic core of pure communication. Man did not create a system of communication to explore his inmost feelings, rather he created it like the apes of today use language, to communicate threats, establish social bonds, and, with our increased sophistication of language over time, to coordinate raids and hunts.

---

Would you say that is Man in the modern sense? It’s just that it sounds quite similar to the apes. Perhaps our perception of ourselves as ourselves has something to do with language?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “SheykAbdullah”

As to the first sentance (and forgive me for addressing them out of order) I agree. These uses of languages are an aspect of communication. Howver there is a problem with the discussion of linguistics. Many people forget that linguistics is one science and philosophy another. I would never describe philosophy in linguistics terms and thus linguistics need not be defined in philosophical terms.

---

Now you are simply offering competing discourses. They preserve themselves by developing and extending the realm of what is deemed appropriate to their own realm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “SheykAbdullah”

There was a time when …It's use as such is merely a tertiary benefit.

---

More static, I’m afraid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Thats actually not true. The theory is people need to interact with the advert sooo they have to Keep it simple to reach a larger target audiance. If they have highbrow adverts they risk alienating a large part of the audiance.

---

Yes, I would agree that your point is valid. But I would disagree with how you describe it as the theory; there is more to the theories of marketing than 'target audience'. And what you said does not prove my point untrue; remember, I was talking about the media, not just advertisement. It may be lacking; but I was not aiming to focus on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

Yes, I would agree that your point is valid. But I would disagree with how you describe it as the theory; there is more to the theories of marketing than 'target audience'. And what you said does not prove my point untrue; remember, I was talking about the media, not just advertisement. It may be lacking; but I was not aiming to focus on this.

---

yes sorry I had erased some which is why the the was left.
I was thinknig about the relativist theory applied with hypodermic model theory and not really paying attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

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".

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

Despite their efforts the French still say 'internet.'

---

Exactly. Why is that, do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

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?

A few things:

1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

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

---

No, actually you said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

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

---

...This one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

communication is accomplished on the shortest most effective means possible.

---

4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

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?

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 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