When language inbreeds
If you tend to use the word ‘literally’ then one would imagine that you know what it means and how it is properly to be used. You’re probably wrong though. Somehow the word has ‘evolved’ to mean the opposite of what it once meant. Language is dying. When does what was once a word stop being a word? Perhaps a word is no longer a word once it becomes its own antonym.
5 Responses to “When language inbreeds”
Leave a Reply
Hi, I'm Raj Patel. Nice to meet you. I'm a writer, photographer, film producer, avid reader, gamer, architect, programmer, artist, community manager, and general nerd.
Here at Ohmpage I try to cover the news and trends at the intersection between technology and culture. In practice this means you get a lot of high-tech, new-media, type of fun stuff (the stuff that interests me) presented to you. I surf hard so you don't have to.
If you would like to contact me, please feel free to email me or follow me on twitter. I'm always happy to talk.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Shifts in sense don’t equate to language’s death at all! That’s a big assertion, mister.
When a word adopts new meaning (Even a meaning which is opposite to the original meaning) do we remove that original meaning or can a word be its own anyonym? if it can, then does it really have any meaning at all? And once we lose meaning, do we not lose the intent of language and thus kill language itself? When white becomes the new black, any contrast in the world becomes irrelevant.
Can a word be its own acronym?
Ravel/unravel has been holding a similarly complicated position for years.
With a nod to Kierkegaard and another one to de Saussure, language has been thought of as a social contract between people and something that is arguably totally personal, mutable, and without fixed meaning to start with. A word functioning differently in different contexts (or, okay, being misused), doesn’t indicate the death of language overall. White can’t come to be the new black because they are physically different things. Language, however, has plenty of room to shift around as a social phenomenon.
If I say big to refer to small but you and I have an understanding of that use of the word big then it will have the desired meaning when we talk but anybody who does not have that information will missunderstand me. there will therefore be no communication or miscommunication. If this happens with too many words, my meaning will be lost and thus so will my capacity for language. Look at the word ‘irony’. Many more people use the word than understand its meaning, and thus when people call something ironic, it means nothing to you since you don’t know what they mean by that word.
I think it’s Derrida who said that every language is a trace from another language in both meaning and sound. So I don’t think language is dying, it’s just evolving. I’m sure 17th century Englishpeople would be none too pleased about what we did to the language. Now it’s the next generation’s turn.
You might be interested in this: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005523.html