Word Watch, Part Two
© Adam Granger
Note: Miss Malaprop and Miss Abuse, an essay in the Park Bugle section, was drawn from this piece, and from Word Watch, Part One.
Welcome to Word Watch, Part Two. I want to repeat that the purpose of this series is not to be an effete intellectual (or, in my case, pseudo-intellectual) curmudgeon, but rather to have fun with observations about our use of language.
I believe that a tolerant, analytical (i.e. descriptive) approach to this issue is a better route to follow than a grouchy pedantic (prescriptive) one. Let me also repeat that I welcome input from the reader, especially as regards my writing.
Like it or not, language does evolve, and while the unfortunate fact is that this evolution is usually the result of poor education, ignorance and, in the case of the spoken word, physical laziness, it is nevertheless a fact of our species.
Attempts to curtail this evolution lead to no good. Is the French government really serving its population well by trying, as they are, to legislate English words out of its country? I think not; it only serves to make them look foolish and insecure about their linguistic—and thus cultural—heritage.
Do any of us better serve the world by walking around grumpily commenting on misuse of words? It's more fun—and healthier—to embrace and welcome these evolutions, whatever their origins.
That said, misspelling is one linguistic “error” that is assailable, if one is so inclined. It's an unfortunate irony that misspelling is the most common type of error, since the spelling of a word is the last thing to change (but perhaps it's not ironic: the commonness of misspelling must be partly attributable to the nonsensical way in which many English words are spelled).
Traditionally, “legitimate” changes in spelling are very rare; we have a host of words which frankly could do with a good re-spelling, if the role of spelling is to aid in pronunciation. The spellings of English language words were codified by the first wave of what I'll call modern-era lexicographers (working in the last couple of centuries). Before that, words were spelled pretty much how authors thought they should be spelled. With the first dictionaries of this era came a freeze-frame of what had been up until then a fluid spelling process.
All right. So, let's pretend that you've been given the task of revamping the spelling of the English language. How would you go about it? Would you empanel a team of lexicographers and linguists? How would you select them, and by what criteria would they be qualified? How would spelling changes be implemented? Would extant dictionaries become instantly obsolete? These are the horns of the dilemma and thus do we find ourselves in the 21st Century with a third of our language represented in 19th-Century spelling.
Interestingly, the texting and emailing phenomena have effected more spelling changes than any academic panel ever could have. This lay movement—however unintentional its motives may be—represents the first real opportunity in 200 years to actually change word spellings en masse. It is, of course, technology which has initiated this, as opposed to any high-minded intellectual agenda.
Following my theory (but, I assume, not mine alone) that language evolves downward, defined and modified by what we call “common usage”, there is no better Official American English Language Spelling Modification Panel than 180 million Americans (170 million of them seemingly adolescents). They send the same messages over and over, an oleo of quotidian intercourse.
This process has created (and continues to create), in the finest de-evolutionary tradition, words with unnecessary letters removed, new words and new abbreviations, some of them funny (lol). Once these innovations have been used for a few years, they will find themselves included in dictionaries (lexicographers being the ultimate descriptive grammarians!)
I have no problem with any of this as long as I can stipulate my wish—pointless as it is—that a bit more intelligence and education were involved in the process. I understand that that ain't a-gonna happen, and that's okay.
It is still an exciting process to watch: cumbersome old spellings getting streamlined and words and acronyms being coined left and right. It's a great time for a descriptive grammarian to be alive.
I believe that a tolerant, analytical (i.e. descriptive) approach to this issue is a better route to follow than a grouchy pedantic (prescriptive) one. Let me also repeat that I welcome input from the reader, especially as regards my writing.
Like it or not, language does evolve, and while the unfortunate fact is that this evolution is usually the result of poor education, ignorance and, in the case of the spoken word, physical laziness, it is nevertheless a fact of our species.
Attempts to curtail this evolution lead to no good. Is the French government really serving its population well by trying, as they are, to legislate English words out of its country? I think not; it only serves to make them look foolish and insecure about their linguistic—and thus cultural—heritage.
Do any of us better serve the world by walking around grumpily commenting on misuse of words? It's more fun—and healthier—to embrace and welcome these evolutions, whatever their origins.
That said, misspelling is one linguistic “error” that is assailable, if one is so inclined. It's an unfortunate irony that misspelling is the most common type of error, since the spelling of a word is the last thing to change (but perhaps it's not ironic: the commonness of misspelling must be partly attributable to the nonsensical way in which many English words are spelled).
Traditionally, “legitimate” changes in spelling are very rare; we have a host of words which frankly could do with a good re-spelling, if the role of spelling is to aid in pronunciation. The spellings of English language words were codified by the first wave of what I'll call modern-era lexicographers (working in the last couple of centuries). Before that, words were spelled pretty much how authors thought they should be spelled. With the first dictionaries of this era came a freeze-frame of what had been up until then a fluid spelling process.
All right. So, let's pretend that you've been given the task of revamping the spelling of the English language. How would you go about it? Would you empanel a team of lexicographers and linguists? How would you select them, and by what criteria would they be qualified? How would spelling changes be implemented? Would extant dictionaries become instantly obsolete? These are the horns of the dilemma and thus do we find ourselves in the 21st Century with a third of our language represented in 19th-Century spelling.
Interestingly, the texting and emailing phenomena have effected more spelling changes than any academic panel ever could have. This lay movement—however unintentional its motives may be—represents the first real opportunity in 200 years to actually change word spellings en masse. It is, of course, technology which has initiated this, as opposed to any high-minded intellectual agenda.
Following my theory (but, I assume, not mine alone) that language evolves downward, defined and modified by what we call “common usage”, there is no better Official American English Language Spelling Modification Panel than 180 million Americans (170 million of them seemingly adolescents). They send the same messages over and over, an oleo of quotidian intercourse.
This process has created (and continues to create), in the finest de-evolutionary tradition, words with unnecessary letters removed, new words and new abbreviations, some of them funny (lol). Once these innovations have been used for a few years, they will find themselves included in dictionaries (lexicographers being the ultimate descriptive grammarians!)
I have no problem with any of this as long as I can stipulate my wish—pointless as it is—that a bit more intelligence and education were involved in the process. I understand that that ain't a-gonna happen, and that's okay.
It is still an exciting process to watch: cumbersome old spellings getting streamlined and words and acronyms being coined left and right. It's a great time for a descriptive grammarian to be alive.
