Gosh... I have a lot to learn...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worldwalker
And once again, we hear from the people who remember nothing of their English classes but "our languages are alive." They don't remember anything else, but they remember the one thing they think gives them a license to be sloppy.
There is a difference between "growing, changing, etc." and just being an utter slob who doesn't know how to use a word and picks one that sounds kind of similar, like "your" for "you're" or "there" for "their". They throw away meaning when they talk of a "straight jacket" and have no clue why it's straighter than any other jacket (it isn't -- it's strait, as in tight) or talk about "free reign" as if kings had something to do with letting a horse find its own way, that is, giving it free rein. They lose all the meanings that words have gained and keep only the sound, and figure if "rain" and "reign" and "rein" all sound the same, they're interchangeable. After all, written language is only a way of reproducing the sound, right, so you just sound it out and understand what you just said ... right? ... right?
We should use "literal" to mean "not literal", right? After all, we don't really need a word that means what "literal" means now. If you want to say you figuratively exploded, people will know what you mean when you say you literally exploded; if you went 'pop' you won't be here to write about it anyway. And sure, "hone" and "home" sound kind of the same, so let's just use "hone" to mean "home". After all, "sharpening in on" is a common phrase; you say you sharpen in on things every day, don't you? There's no reason to keep the meanings of words. Just keep the sounds, and that'll be fine ... won't it?
That kind of "growth" we don't need. As C.S. Lewis said, I've seen that in an egg -- we call it 'going bad'.
|