Day 121
To continue a slight bit from yesterday's finish on love, I'd like to paraphrase the comedian and philosopher George Carlin: We think in language, and as such we can only really be as good thinkers as we are language users.
On the one hand I am frustrated with those people who insist on perfect grammar and structure. I want to say "If you understand what it is that I'm saying, or writing, then what's to complain about? If language is intended to allow us to communicate, and a few errors don't hamper the communication, then there is no reason to fret." And to the extent it also follows that the 'old-timers' who complain about the morphing of words into acronyms and this new internet-speak are in the wrong; it is merely the evolution of language to match the the way in which we think. life is getting faster, more convenient, more ready-at-hand. Thoughts mimic experience, and language mimics thought. Is the progression of language a shock to anybody? Is it inevitable?
But on the other hand, I often fancy myself one of these old timers, in spite of my young age and addiction to the tongue-sticking-out emoticon on MSN. Carlin has it right, the progression runs both ways. The faster and frankly less thoughtful our language becomes, the more that we will mirror this in our very thoughts, and inevitably in action. We will become more stupider, as it were. Inevitable, perhaps, but also pernicious, I say! The maxim of thinking before we speak is beginning to lose its edge. The word (think of how you speak online) often replaces the need for thought; we have automated response systems, of language, (this is shocking!) that operate no less nomologically than do our physical responses to pain or pleasure.
We very nearly might as well not speak if such is to be the case.
On the one hand I am frustrated with those people who insist on perfect grammar and structure. I want to say "If you understand what it is that I'm saying, or writing, then what's to complain about? If language is intended to allow us to communicate, and a few errors don't hamper the communication, then there is no reason to fret." And to the extent it also follows that the 'old-timers' who complain about the morphing of words into acronyms and this new internet-speak are in the wrong; it is merely the evolution of language to match the the way in which we think. life is getting faster, more convenient, more ready-at-hand. Thoughts mimic experience, and language mimics thought. Is the progression of language a shock to anybody? Is it inevitable?
But on the other hand, I often fancy myself one of these old timers, in spite of my young age and addiction to the tongue-sticking-out emoticon on MSN. Carlin has it right, the progression runs both ways. The faster and frankly less thoughtful our language becomes, the more that we will mirror this in our very thoughts, and inevitably in action. We will become more stupider, as it were. Inevitable, perhaps, but also pernicious, I say! The maxim of thinking before we speak is beginning to lose its edge. The word (think of how you speak online) often replaces the need for thought; we have automated response systems, of language, (this is shocking!) that operate no less nomologically than do our physical responses to pain or pleasure.
We very nearly might as well not speak if such is to be the case.
Comments