Re: On The "Evolution" Of Language"
Posted by:
Dale Nelson (IP Logged)
Date: 17 April, 2021 07:59PM
Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The following is just an addendum to the thoughts
> expressed in my (off topic) post to the "Re: Henry
> S. Whitehead-personal life" thread. They are
> merely my personal thoughts--always a danger for
> me to express in this forum, I realize, lol!-- but
> I hope that their relevance to the work of CAS is
> evident.
>
>
>
> To hear the linguistic descriptivists speak, one
> would think that 20th-and 21st-Century changes in
> language usage, such as acceptance of split
> infinitives--which are driven mostly by ignorance,
> thoughtlessness, or outright semi-literacy--were
> comparable to those of the Elizabethan period. It
> makes me laugh, albeit a bit sadly.
>
> It is also amusing to hear descriptivists hold
> forth about the "evolution of language", and its
> necessity. Descriptivists complain of "outmoded"
> or "outdated" forms of expression. To me, it is
> highly questionable to claim that, merely because
> a word or a linguistic form has fallen out of use
> or fashion, that fact should necessarily consign
> it forever to oblivion. After all, if clothing
> fashions can make "comebacks", then why not
> certain words or rules of usage? If, as
> descriptivists tend to claim, language is
> ever-dynamic and evolving, then it seems that the
> revival of an older word or usage is as fair an
> embodiment of this principle as the idea of
> constant linguistic novelty.
>
> I should add that I do not necessarily accept the
> "dynamic evolution" metaphor for language
> development. It amuses me, though, that many
> descriptivists seem to share the widespread
> misunderstanding and misuse of the word evolution,
> which many today mistake for "progress", or for
> other purely forward- or linear-thinking mental
> models. To use a biological analogy: The finch's
> beak both lengthens and shortens; it does not
> simply continue to grow longer and longer.
> Evolution, including the evolution of language (if
> one accepts that idea), can move in many
> directions, and yet still constitute evolution per
> se.
I just glanced at the first page of this thread. Whewww. I am glad that ED is not the kind of place in which snarkiness proceeds as it does in Callaghan & maybe others.
But if anyone wants to talk about the "evolution of language," such a one should look into the writings of Owen Barfield, such as Poetic Diction, Speaker's Meaning[i], and [i]Saving the Appearances. I'm not proposing that those of us present now do so -- but leaving this message as a suggestion for people who might discover this thread someday and want to do something with it.
Kyberean sounds like a pretty sensible writer from this one message.