Language: Evolving or Degrading?

[Zenith]

Recently the word "literally" received a second definition. According to a Google Search of "define literally" the definition of literally is as follows.

literally

1. in a literal manner or sense; exactly.
   "the driver took it literally when asked to go straight across the traffic circle"
2. informal
   used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true.
   "I have received literally thousands of letters"

That's right. Literally now means both literally and not literally.

In addition, the word "peruse" is a commonly misused word. The traditional definition is to read through and examine something carefully. Often times people would use the word to describe lightly skimming over reading material. Depending on which dictionary you ask, this is sometimes recognized as a secondary definition.

Some argue that language is meant to evolve. In the same way that we no longer use sentence structure from the days of Shakespeare, definitions that do not agree with modern parlance will be phased out. Others argue that allowing language to be determined by democracy will lead to a confusing and ultimately useless language.

Where do you stand?

 

[Tornado]

It still saddens me that after about 2010 or so I started noticing that my college teachers needed to start stating outright to not use textspeak in research papers.

 

[LeMansAid]

There are some that I hate, but might have to suck up: "I'll verse you in Battlefield" for example. Then there's just plain wrong. Of course there's already a word for the sample's informal definition.... virtually. I'm not so down on going to new places with words, but really don't go for muddying the existing.

As it turns out, I have a story in relation to Zenith's example word. Someone on GTPlanet once wrote in reference to me: What you say makes no sense, "literally". Yes, they put literally in inverted commas. Love it.


Edit: I find it extremely stressful writing about this stuff. I'm so paranoid that I'll make mistakes of my own.

 

[Wolfe]

Evolution of language is natural and necessary, but I don't think we should accommodate everything.

Textspeak might be a better example than "literally." The secondary definition of "literally" is no worse than, say, using "wicked" or "sick" to compliment something. As long as it's only considered acceptable in similarly informal circumstances, I'm okay with it. It's useful to have a definition of the informal use for non-native speakers, too.

I would agree that textspeak in certain contexts represents degradation of language. Especially shortened words (y, u) or numbers for syllables, rather than common acronyms.

 

[Imari]

I'm fine with the language evolving and the definition of words changing over time.

It does my head in when one word has two contradictory meanings, like the previous example of "literally". Unfortunately, a major driver of linguistic change seems to be making up new words to be cool, or to deliberately obfuscate the meaning. There doesn't seem to be much drive to make words for the sake of clarifying meanings.

 

[photonrider]

Some argue that language is meant to evolve. In the same way that we no longer use sentence structure from the days of Shakespeare, definitions that do not agree with modern parlance will be phased out. Others argue that allowing language to be determined by democracy will lead to a confusing and ultimately useless language.

Where do you stand?

Are you talking just about the English Language, Zenith, or communication via languages in general?
Either way, this is a great topic, and there's much to be discussed here.
Using all visible means of communication, I guess.

 

[LeMansAid]

Using all visible means of communication, I guess.

Is that really a smile then?

 

[photonrider]

Perception is everything.

 

[Dotini]

Recently the word "literally" received a second definition. According to a Google Search of "define literally" the definition of literally is as follows.

literally

1. in a literal manner or sense; exactly.
   "the driver took it literally when asked to go straight across the traffic circle"
2. informal
   used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true.
   "I have received literally thousands of letters"

That's right. Literally now means both literally and not literally.

In addition, the word "peruse" is a commonly misused word. The traditional definition is to read through and examine something carefully. Often times people would use the word to describe lightly skimming over reading material. Depending on which dictionary you ask, this is sometimes recognized as a secondary definition.

Some argue that language is meant to evolve. In the same way that we no longer use sentence structure from the days of Shakespeare, definitions that do not agree with modern parlance will be phased out. Others argue that allowing language to be determined by democracy will lead to a confusing and ultimately useless language.

Where do you stand?

The use of the English language is one of the great joys in life, so it's churlish to make too many complaints about such a marvelous means to communicate and express oneself. I am in the camp that accepts evolution in language, mainly because it is silly to fight it. It happens anyway. I'm also in the camp that admires language that is punchy and colorful. Language, since it can, should be both meaningful and entertaining. One of the most remarkable trends is the proliferation of profanity. If you've watched Deadwood, Game of Thrones and similar cable TV fare you'll know exactly what I mean. At this time of crushing inequality of income, loss of economic opportunity, massive corruption in politics, systematic spying on everything we do, and depressing loss of freedoms we used to enjoy, it is significant recompense to have the global village internet with its instant access to the thoughts of people all over the world. Our common language of English makes this possible, and I'm very glad of it.

 

[Imari]

The use of the English language is one of the great joys in life, so it's churlish to make too many complaints about such a marvelous means to communicate and express oneself.

Being alive is one of the great joys in life, so it's churlish to make too many complaints about the inequality and violence that goes on in so many parts of the world.

Wait, that doesn't work quite as well, does it? There's nothing wrong with discussing the problems with the English language, and it's certainly not "churlish". You just wanted to use the word.

 

[Zenith]

Are you talking just about the English Language, Zenith, or communication via languages in general?
Either way, this is a great topic, and there's much to be discussed here.
Using all visible means of communication, I guess.

I specifically used English because that's what I know. If other languages are evolving in questionable ways I think it applies to the thread just as well.

 

[BobK]

I can remember when "gay" meant "joyous, happy".

 

[Famine]

It turns out that, indeed, literally literally doesn't mean literally.

Figuratively speaking.

 

[Liquid]

If we're talking about English language, I would err towards degradation while obviously acknowledging evolution is a natural part of language.

I see Zenith's OP and wonder to myself, "Whose definition gives a non-literal definition of literally?" and there it is. Compared to other languages like Spanish (Real Academia Española), German (Rat für deutsche Rechtschreibung) and Italian (Accademia della Crusca), English has no official de jure regulatory body to standardise these things. I disagree with parts of the OED, certainly regarding some of the latest additions, and certainly do not use Webster's.

Of course, English and Spanish are similar in that they are both plurocentric and the institution I mentioned above only applies to Spain and other Hispanophone countries have their own affiliates, but my point still stands. Without official regulation, even if for just your own variation such as Australian English, British English, South African English and so on, the language will degrade.

And, most critically, teach English grammar in school. It makes learning another language a lot easier to appreciate and understand in terms of framework and concepts. Instead, I had to get Wikipedia to teach me English grammar. But of course, learning and knowing grammar helps you understand your own language; misplaced apostrophes, would 'of', whom and so on...

 

[Danny]

Rachel Zoe has a lot to answer for.

 

[Maccer_42]

I don't know if this is relevant, but one thing that has always bothered me is people who say they beat a video game. I have always felt that is wrong and that you complete video games, you don't beat them.

 

[Liquid]

Beat has the same connotation as defeat, as in sports. I can see how a video game, or the challenges within the video game, are opponents you are trying to defeat.

But this is more semantics than language evolution.

 

[Keef]

I think it's evolving. There's a time and a place for proper terminology but as long as the other person understands what you mean then I don't see the big deal.

Regional dialects and accents are a perfect example of why language will never be homogenous and I don't see anybody arguing against those.

 

[Imari]

I don't know if this is relevant, but one thing that has always bothered me is people who say they beat a video game. I have always felt that is wrong and that you complete video games, you don't beat them.

What Liquid said, plus you'll find that a significant number of early computer games were the player versus the computer in a very direct and obvious way. Either you lost or you won, and if you won it was probably the end of the game and you started again.

We used to say we clocked a game when we finished it, which is even weirder until you realise that a lot of early games were score-based, and rolling the clock over was the best you could possibly do in those games.

 

[Liquid]

What Liquid said, plus you'll find that a significant number of early computer games were the player versus the computer in a very direct and obvious way. Either you lost or you won, and if you won it was probably the end of the game and you started again.

We used to say we clocked a game when we finished it, which is even weirder until you realise that a lot of early games were score-based, and rolling the clock over was the best you could possibly do in those games.

Kind of like how you still dial a phone, even though modern phones don't have rotary dials anymore. With the advent of technology, there is this curious phenomenon of retaining grandfather terminology when it no longer applies.

 

[photonrider]

I can remember when "gay" meant "joyous, happy".

AFAIK - it still does, Bobk.

I specifically used English because that's what I know. If other languages are evolving in questionable ways I think it applies to the thread just as well.

Cool. 👍

I'm all ears.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Recently the word "literally" received a second definition. According to a Google Search of "define literally" the definition of literally is as follows.

literally

1. in a literal manner or sense; exactly.
   "the driver took it literally when asked to go straight across the traffic circle"
2. informal
   used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true.
   "I have received literally thousands of letters"

That's right. Literally now means both literally and not literally.

Where do you stand?

I am about to do something I have never ever done before; apologies to the Mods if this is spam but this is a big moment for me...

 

[Slash]

I have no problem with it. Things seem to fit in with today's society. As long as things don't become weird, I'll be ok

 

[BobK]

AFAIK - it still does, Bobk.

Yes it still does, but that's no longer the primary meaning. If you say someone is gay today your listener will take it to mean something completely different. It wouldn't surprise me if sometime in the future the "happy" meaning will be marked with [archaic].

I think it's evolving. There's a time and a place for proper terminology but as long as the other person understands what you mean then I don't see the big deal.

👍

Regional dialects and accents are a perfect example of why language will never be homogenous and I don't see anybody arguing against those.

However, dialects and accents are slowly fading due to movies, television, the telephone, etc, etc.

 

[Zenith]

The way I see it, language should be treated like a system of measurements. We don't use many old standards of measurement, and that's fine, but we shouldn't allow the meter to be redefined because people keep using it wrong.

 

[Pupik]

Many words take on new and greater meanings. I think the definition of "literally" used it's own root as definition, which I was taught was...well, wrong if you'd tried it in class!

That second definition bugs me - a word shouldn't mean both the thing it is and which is not. That's why we have words like not and un- for the sake of meaning and construct. And yes, it's because people can't use "figuratively" properly, but I suppose it doesn't sound very good; I guess we needed "literally" for all those times we needed to denote that we weren't being figurative. Which is probably what created this problem in the first place.

I think I need to sit down.

Evolution of language is natural and necessary, but I don't think we should accommodate everything.

Textspeak might be a better example than "literally." The secondary definition of "literally" is no worse than, say, using "wicked" or "sick" to compliment something. As long as it's only considered acceptable in similarly informal circumstances, I'm okay with it. It's useful to have a definition of the informal use for non-native speakers, too.

Agreed; there's many different ways to communicate the same ideas, and colloquial variants to go with it.

I would agree that textspeak in certain contexts represents degradation of language. Especially shortened words (y, u) or numbers for syllables, rather than common acronyms.

Language has almost always had strata which denote class or (dis)respect, slang which define in-groups, jargon within a specialty, nuance for irony and tone...et cetera. So I don't think all manner of text-speak will last forever; like slang and other trendy words, they arrive and depart with the times. Sometimes, if no other word works...it takes root. That's what language should do.

Case in point...I detest the word selfie: but there wasn't an existing simple-word or standard phrase that captured the idea and concept of it, so a word came about.

 

[ECGadget]

I am not one to use much slang, but I do use it occasionally (90's slang that is xD). But for the majority of the time, I stick to proper English. Sadly all around me I hear the worst use of English I have ever heard. Slang is no long the odd word like cool or wicked, or wicked cool as I say. But now a sentence ends up like (and I'll most likely get this wrong):

Jam dat hype bruv, cuz you be parred like woah, proper merc'd.

Or something like that. To be honest, I had to think for a whole minute before I wrote that. The sad thing is that whilst they use this kind of language, the spelling quality drops. The chance for intellectual conversation falls through the floor, and it gets to a stage where words like "Synonym" are just something they see in MS Word. I actually asked a 16 year old a few weeks back what it meant. They had no idea. Bring back the books, stop the TV, until kids can actually sting together a paragraph without using slang. And in less than a week.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So it seems that in this thread people are okay with "literally" meaning

used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true.

.

I refer you to my previous post :\

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

I honestly think it's laziness. I paid money to learn German, and I learned French and Spanish. Other people are almost too lazy to bother speaking English properly... Let alone learn a foreign language.

Most people, when they consider learning another language think that "everyone speaks English, so why bother?" ...And then proceed to butcher English with colloquialisms I hope cease to exist in a few years. But, for as long as people allow it to continue, I don't see anyone deciding "yes, yes I will write with proper and correct grammar." It's far too difficult, time-consuming and frustrating for some people who don't understand the value of an internationally accepted language... Which they're so hesitant to claim as an internationally accepted language. The worst part, is that when foreign (non-native speakers) learn English, they do it better than the English-speaking native speakers. So many times, my Korean classmates, German friends and I have to correct our college professors on spelling, it's gotten to the point where I just give up and write the correct spelling down in my notes... The others have since joined me in doing the same.

Not even the college professors can be bothered to write properly - it's not a good sign... And with the naïveté of the native speakers who don't realize that English will soon be no longer internationally understood (dialects are getting thicker and thicker, and people are putting so much less effort into it,) I don't think it'll be long (maybe six generations) before the language is fully re-invented.


Of course, it's all just my opinion, and I have no facts to support it, but... I'm allowed to believe this.

 

[LeMansAid]

I can remember when "gay" meant "joyous, happy".

At one point I explained to a German friend that gay was originally limited to meaning happy. He found it utterly hilarious and proceeded to substitute at any given opportunity. He'd say things like "Any pepper? I want you to be gay with your sausage."

@TenEightyOne No, I'm not ok with it.