How do you access a dictionary these days?
The Internet, right.
Well, let's talk about the English language today. Mostly the era of emerging words, when urban dictionary, gets more clicks than the oxford one. I remember of days when my dad, would always look with disbelief at the pocket dictionary, constantly cross-examining the words with his dusty reference book of the '80s.
Not all languages have seen such a shift in their word usage, rather many are losing out in the battle, leaving certain words only to the dictionary, but English has. In fact, there is some historical connotation to this new sport. The world war had crowned the U.S as the new power centre of the globe, giving it a scope to spread its culture over the nations. But, the U.S. had killed its indigenous culture long back like Australia. It had become the assemblage of the Europeans who wanted to move out of the nation-states.
With the lack of an indigenous language, the U.S. went with an unusual choice, a trendy version of the English language. Was it a win for British, who held the glory of being its native speakers, or had they sold their language in the hands of a country which was beginning to create its own image. The American English, however, celebrated the ease of working with the language. A principle that fires the soul of the Jabberwocky. with american english atarting the trend of morphing words to hasten life, a lot others soon jump on the bandwagon. The advent of an instant messenger enforced the need for a shorter language, and yes the syntax of English was ruthlessly butchered.
My principal argument against the practice is that an ever-changing language is hard to keep track of. Which implies the literary works of yester days might become pan's labyrinth for readers of coming years. Although, the internet has allowed for a global exchange of information, making it easier to find works; there lies a concern that when the language we speak begins to be different from the one we read, the intrinsic motivation to understand the incomprehensible, dies out. Its probably why the victorian English texts have a handful of admirers left.
A lot of this started when the oxford dictionary would announce a new set of works they added each year. The motive was to include the pop culture into the language, who knew soon u w'd rd this with no difficulty. I do agree that as long as both participants can communicate with other, there must be no restriction on the language used. Still, when these are made uniform, a lot of others can also gain an understanding of their interaction. And when such a structure has been inforced, drastic changes, that achieve seemingly no benefit than short-lived excitement, must be discouraged. Even if it runs the risk of being un-cool.
The Internet, right.
Well, let's talk about the English language today. Mostly the era of emerging words, when urban dictionary, gets more clicks than the oxford one. I remember of days when my dad, would always look with disbelief at the pocket dictionary, constantly cross-examining the words with his dusty reference book of the '80s.
Not all languages have seen such a shift in their word usage, rather many are losing out in the battle, leaving certain words only to the dictionary, but English has. In fact, there is some historical connotation to this new sport. The world war had crowned the U.S as the new power centre of the globe, giving it a scope to spread its culture over the nations. But, the U.S. had killed its indigenous culture long back like Australia. It had become the assemblage of the Europeans who wanted to move out of the nation-states.
With the lack of an indigenous language, the U.S. went with an unusual choice, a trendy version of the English language. Was it a win for British, who held the glory of being its native speakers, or had they sold their language in the hands of a country which was beginning to create its own image. The American English, however, celebrated the ease of working with the language. A principle that fires the soul of the Jabberwocky. with american english atarting the trend of morphing words to hasten life, a lot others soon jump on the bandwagon. The advent of an instant messenger enforced the need for a shorter language, and yes the syntax of English was ruthlessly butchered.
My principal argument against the practice is that an ever-changing language is hard to keep track of. Which implies the literary works of yester days might become pan's labyrinth for readers of coming years. Although, the internet has allowed for a global exchange of information, making it easier to find works; there lies a concern that when the language we speak begins to be different from the one we read, the intrinsic motivation to understand the incomprehensible, dies out. Its probably why the victorian English texts have a handful of admirers left.
A lot of this started when the oxford dictionary would announce a new set of works they added each year. The motive was to include the pop culture into the language, who knew soon u w'd rd this with no difficulty. I do agree that as long as both participants can communicate with other, there must be no restriction on the language used. Still, when these are made uniform, a lot of others can also gain an understanding of their interaction. And when such a structure has been inforced, drastic changes, that achieve seemingly no benefit than short-lived excitement, must be discouraged. Even if it runs the risk of being un-cool.