Why/What is destroying Language

[CasperTFG]

I think the ease of creating, modifying and transfering data is what is destroying language.

In the days before correction fluid, If you made a mistake typing a letter, you started over. Therefore would also make sure you were writting the proper thing in the first place. Thought was actually put into what was typed or written down.

If anyone has ever used a telex machine you know exactly what I mean. If you made one incorrect key stroke, you would have to go back to the begining.

Our own impatients is also destroying language. Many of us would agree that we would rather read a simple to the point paragraph than a long winded essay on it.

The ease of transfering data also makes us sloppy. Today we can send out a message, then make a correction and send it again. Change our mind and adjust it again. All of this can be done and sent in a matter of minutes. If this was all going through letter carrier it could drag on for a month.

Today I got a perfect example of this. I sent a purchase order out. The company replied back to me that I priced an item in USD rather than CDN. I made the adjustment and sent it again. They replied with an invoice, on the invoice I noticed they wrote down an incorrect hardware extension.

All of this back and forth resending via fax, lasted a total of about an hour. If there was no email or fax, then this process would have gone on for months and I probably would have made sure everyone had the right information to begin with to avoid all of this.

The attitiude today is get it done and out the door. If something needs to be changed or fixed it can be changed then.

Just my thoughts.



Casper

There is room for all of gods creatures, "Right Beside the Mashed Potatoes".

 

[entaroadun]

The consonant changes are due to the differences between the way the Frankish and Gaelic record the same sounds. SC in gaelic is pronounced SH. LL when surrounded by vowels is silent.

The spellings changed, and then the pronunciations of those spellings changed, which helped move us from Old and Middle English to modern English.

 

[sleipnir214]

If anyone is interested, I found at page titled "A (Very) Brief History of English" that seems to get it right. See

http://www.wordorigins.org/histeng.htm

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[ngkatsaras]

It's very simple. Some people simply don't like change and progress. They are against technology. They have difficulty adjusting to the fast pace of growth we have seen over the past century and particularly since the advent of the PC.

Have you read the Unibomber Manifesto? He has some interesting points, but in my view, technological progress is progress and he is a madman, albeit a genius with a warped mind.

How can you seriously propose that we throw away our word processors and e-mail systems and go back to typewriters and faxing? Are you serious? I'm sorry if I seem to be rude, but that kind of backwards thinking really bothers me.

 

[Stella740pl]

How can you seriously propose that we throw away our word processors and e-mail systems and go back to typewriters and faxing? Are you serious?

I am sorry, did I miss anything? Did anyone actually proposed that?

 

[jwenting]

According to the etymology entries at YourDictionary, it looks like spell in the sense of "to spell a word" comes from the Middle English spellen. And spell in the sense of "come sit for a spell" comes from the Middle English spelen.

I wonder if there wasn't a vowel-sound shift somewhere. German as the word splielen ("to play"), which might be a cognate of the single-"l" spelen. Unfortunately, I don't have a pronunciation of spelen.

spelen is Dutch for "to play".
spellen is Dutch for "to spell" (in the meaning of spelling a word).
Middle English, Dutch and German share many common words and idioms.

As to English being destroyed, I doubt it.
What is happening is that local variations of languages are blending together as communication with other groups becomes ever easier and faster.

 

[CasperTFG]

I was simply trying to point out, that if our medium wasn't so fast and easy to use, that the message would have more thought put into it. I never suggested that we throw away technology only that we be more aware of our reliance on it.

I for one can't spell(v.) without setting my mind to it absolutely, and without auto spell check in Outlook Most of my emails would go out with many errors.



Casper

There is room for all of gods creatures, "Right Beside the Mashed Potatoes".

 

[strongm]

Trouble is that spell checkers are one of the most evil inventions in the world. Well, OK, in the world of spelling. The problem is that people rely on them nowadays - so if a spell checker does not issue a warning...well, hey, the spelling must be OK. Except spell checkers are mostly stupid.

A spell checker won't fix:

"How long is 60 minutes? Won our

 

[CasperTFG]

that is true, the one spell checking behaviour I hate is. It will take my incorrect "andt he", the correct it to "and he" instead of "and the". Simple for me to see how it is incorrect but not for the spell checker.

But then I can also add. What is 3947776 / 256 ? Now how many will actually do the long division, and how many will pull out Calc.exe?

Casper

There is room for all of gods creatures, "Right Beside the Mashed Potatoes".

 

[sleipnir214]

CasperTFG:

But then I can also add. What is 3947776 / 256 ? Now how many will actually do the long division, and how many will pull out Calc.exe?

What point are you trying to make here? That I shouldn't use a tool that will give me a more-likely accurate result more quickly?


jwenting:
In Dutch, are spellen and spelen pronounced differently?


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[SF0751]

[tt]3,947,776 divided by 256 = 15,421[/tt].

And no, I didn't use a calculator, just pencil and paper. My pet peeve is not that people rely on the tools that are available to them (calculators, spell check, etc.) but that they cannot function without those tools, or they are blind to the faults that are present within those tools.

Tools can either cripple or liberate. It's up to each individual to decide.

Susan
[green]Gramen artificiosum odi. [/green]

 

[CasperTFG]

The point isn't, should you not use the tool as opposed to, would you know how to do the work without the tool?


Casper

There is room for all of gods creatures, "Right Beside the Mashed Potatoes".

 

[Chance1234]

what a bizzare concept, can you actually destroy a language ? I know you have dead languages such as latin, so would it be more a case of murdering a language rather than destroy ?

also,

Our own impatients is also destroying language. Many of us would agree that we would rather read a simple to the point paragraph than a long winded essay on it.

Don't get the point you are trying to make there, why would anyone want to read a long winded essay on it.

Chance,

Filmmaker, gentlemen and buccaneer

http://WWW.5YLAC.S5.COM

,

http://WWW.HOWTOBESPOOKY.CO.UK,

http://WWW.HENRYV.CO.UK

 

[CajunCenturion]

Am I to understand that the premise being offered is that blind reliance on language tools is contributing to the destruction of language?

I don't think so. The point is well taken that blind reliance on tools can lead to some very poorly written documents, perhaps even abuse of language, perhaps resulting in a failure to communicate. However, I'm not ready to make the leap to this contributing to the destruction of language.

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Dimandja]

During the Y2K scare, the real fear was that McDees would close at the first sign of a glitch, mainly because the kids couldn't sell a hamburger without the cash machine calculator.

 

[sha76]

Many of us would agree that we would rather read a simple to the point paragraph than a long winded essay on it.

Well it depends what I'm reading. If it's a business document then yes, of course I'd prefer something short & to the point. If it's a novel or piece of decriptive writing the words should be capable of evoking emotions & describing a scene so well I feel I'm there, not easy to do in a bullet point!

Different media and different purposes of writing have always prompted different writing styles & these will always be evolving. I doubt any of them will destroy the language (telegrams didn't & they were short & to the point, with abbreviations).

"Your rock is eroding wrong." -Dogbert

 

[CasperTFG]

I think we got side tracked with the language tools... I am still thinking it's the ease of the medium.

If you can pound out an email and have it sent to someone in minutes. Rather than printing it out, making an envelope and mailing it. Don't you agree that you would probably check over that mailed letter a little more than the email?

Casper

There is room for all of gods creatures, "Right Beside the Mashed Potatoes".

 

[CasperTFG]

The short paragraph part came from an earlier thread discussion where we talked about Nouns as Verbs.

I simply meant to add that it is easier to read out or even to say. "Text Me." than to say the proper. "Send me an Electronic Message by way of my Short Message Service enabled cellular telephone."

Now both of those get the same point across, the later leaves no room for doubt about what you want the person to do. But no one in this day in age would use the later. They would simply say "Text Me".



Casper

There is room for all of gods creatures, "Right Beside the Mashed Potatoes".

 

[MakeItSo]

I don't think it is the ease of the medium, just the type of it. It is often easier re-reading a printed document for corrections. I often can't find mis-spellings or bumpy formulations on screen.
It has partially to do with resolution. If I want to use "high-quality" speech (e.g. for an important customer/if it shall be used company-wide...), I still need to print it out first and read it on paper.

Years ago, I thought this was just a matter of habit - but that is only partially true. I work on the computer all day, but still feel safer re-reading printed docs.

Have you encountered this phenomenon too?

 

[sleipnir214]

I think I understand what you're saying.

I certainly don't understand your point. If two utterances can transmit the same information, why is it necessarily better to use the more long-winded one?


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[MakeItSo]

There is a German saying, freely translated: "The tone makes the music", meaning that how you say something can have severe impact on what you express with it.
So although the pure contents of the "utterances" are the same, their quality is different.

The ability to touch the paper (higher degree of reality!) plus the much higher flexibility of how you hold the paper or sit/lie on your chair/couch (...) and thus feeling more or less comfortable while reading can all have impact on what you perceive.

So the long-winded "utterance" is not necessarily better - but it is in my case. ;-)