Words over time

It is not hard to see that over time Language changes and renews. Similarly, it is not uncommon for society to complain about such change. How often is it that a person negatively states that ‘Language isn’t what it used to be’ or declares a rather biased ‘The younger generation is ruining our language.’ However is it devolution or evolution?

Guy Deutscher, a Language change theorist, said “People have been complaining about decay for millennia, actually, not just centuries” during an interview with American Scientist. So does this conclude that language is forever undergoing change and has not yet faltered to become incomprehensible? He elaborates with “an Egyptian poet some 4,000 years ago who grumbled that things are not what they used to be.” This is truly many millennia of complaint for a tongue that is still being widely used.

This change, however, does not end in the loss of the meanings of out dated words. This was proved in Bill Baileys Chaucer Pubbe Gagge stand-up routine. Whilst he tells his comedic tale he divulges into using outdates lexis and linguistic techniques such as “wenton” and “mead”. Even though it is very unlikely the audience have heard these phrases used before they are still able to understand the connotations behind them and find them humorous, as is seen by their numerous laughs.

Although, on the other hand, Bailey also utilizes the style of adding unnecessary suffixes after simple terms in the form of “pub-a” and “rub-a”. This brings me on whether we should hold onto the language of the past whilst still creating a new form of English.

The creation of a new word is about shaping an old one with a similar denotation or connotation. Jean Aitcheson, another language theorist, summarises this perfectly by stating “These frayed edges must be examined, not snipped away and tidied up.”

As part of human nature we have an urge to explore new things. However this does not ultimately mean that new is good. I agree that examining the frayed edges of words is a positive way forward, but I do not agree that change is always good.

I bring to your attention the word “weird”. Commonly it is misspelt as “wierd” as the author follows the simple rules of “I before E except after C”. Previously this term was spelt simply as “wyrd” and lead no confusing as to the arrangement of the letters involved.

Again, using this evidence for a one sided argument is flawed as it should surely then lead to words like “height” and “weight” to following the same rule of “y”. Forming the words “hyght” and “wyght” would then be a forward progression in language not a reverse progression.

The English language as a whole is not black and white. It is not just forward or backwards. Nor is it a simple yes or no. It is forever adapted and creating itself through slang, outdated words and, quite commonly, the misspelling of words. The English language changes constantly, but it never goes beyond the point of understandlessness. Deutscher sums this up greatly by saying “I wouldn't risk my neck predicting the human race's chances of survival, I can say with 100 percent confidence that if we go down, it won't be because our language has fallen apart.”