This blog looks interesting. And yes, I'm adding the link more for my own reference than anything else.
It's no secret that language interests me. Language history interests me; language structure interests me.
Language rules? Not so much, unless they're trying to describe how a language actually works. Prescriptive (or, as they so often seem, proscriptive) rules do nothing for me, because they can so easily just be someone's idea of how a language
should work as opposed to what's really going on.
I've said it before, but languages are as organic as the organisms that use them. Language has to adapt to situation. Situations change, and if language doesn't change as well then it's no longer suitable. And that equals dead language, folks. Overly rigid language rules that may have applied to a language three hundred years ago likely aren't doing much to explain how the language is working
now, and if it's insisted that those rules should still be followed to the letter the only result is a bizarre museum piece that has almost nothing to do with reality.
Yeah, I get tired of hearing that our language has already chosen its handbasket.
I could go off on that particular rant for several (probably pretty boring) pages, but it got me thinking about a side-rant today. Well, maybe not so much a rant as an explanation. It's voice, you see. Formality in language. People who complain that our language isn't following the rules anymore are often complaining about the voice used rather than the language itself. Sometimes they see an appalling lack of formality in our (general "our", there) writing these days.
Well, no kidding.
Call it mass media, call it web 2.0 (which, by the way... could that phrase please go away?), call it whatever, but more people are writing now than a few centuries ago. More people, more backgrounds; it only makes sense that things in the writing world are loosening up. It's vox populi, boys and girls. Voice of the people.
Vulgar Latin rather than Classical, if you want to think of it that way (which you probably don't. I realise that I'm rapidly headed to full-on nerd here).
And personally, I'm for it.
Oh sure, there are contexts where more formality is expected. If I'm reading a scientific paper I want it in clear, unambiguous, school-ish language (although even that's relaxed a fair bit since I was in university). If I'm reading something from a respected press agency rather than a casual blogger I'm not going to want tweet-speak.
Um, come to think of it, even when I tweet I don't tend to use tweet-speak. Just feels a bit odd to me, that's all. And besides, I tweet as a part of my job. I need to be a little more formal because of that, I think.
It may surprise some of my two fans, but I've made some pretty deliberate choices about the way I speak on this blog. I know I use um and well far too much. I know I make up stupid words sometimes. I know that my grammar isn't perfect, although I do try to make it readable. The fact is, I'm perfectly capable of writing in anal-retentive English that would probably meet all the standards of the Rule Bosses.
Why would I want to? And even more importantly, why would anyone read that?
Not that I really understand why anyone reads this as it stands, of course...
I suppose what I'm trying to say here (or at least part of what I'm trying to say here) is that I wish people would consider the context before they complain. Oh, and maybe if the complainy-types would stop for a moment and listen to the general music of the writing rather than picking out all the wrong notes, they might get more of an appreciation for the fact that so many people are taking the time to sing at all.
Or something.
Bear in mind that this is all off the top of my only-partially-working head. And speaking of work, back to it for me now.
