Language is evolving, for better or worse

Published Saturday, July 5, 2008 at 4:30 a.m.
Last updated Saturday, July 5, 2008 at 2:20 a.m.

By Rich Brooks
Rich Brooks can be reached at rich.brooks@heraldtribune.com.

This was to be an academic exercise. An examination of language and how it has changed over the last several years because of the Internet.

Then, it occurred to me that we're in the midst of a communication revolution. Communication changes so rapidly that it takes a linguist to keep up.

Many of these changes are driven by two forces of this linguistic apocalypse: speed and space. Cn u c that?

Some might contend that the driving force for change is laziness. Whatever the reason, language evolves and changes according to our needs. It's a very democratic process.

Not all changes are good, either. Nor are the demands of the Internet the only reason for language fluctuations. Some are driven by the need for terms that convey meaning without judgment.

For example, take the word 'gay.' At one time the word was a synonym for happy. Now it means a homosexual man. There's nothing wrong with that.

Usage today also includes it being used as an invective, as in, "That's so gay." I find that objectionable and offensive -- what I object to is its use as a pejorative term.

I overheard number one son telling my wife that e-mail is giving way to text messaging and instant messaging.

Soon, came his bold prediction, e-mail will be as obsolete as old-fashioned snail mail.

Other than to hear himself talk, I'm not sure why he informed my wife. As many people know, my wife doesn't do e-mail. Before that she didn't do mail, either.

So, my wife has another form of communication to ignore.

Part of this communication revolution has meant that some words have become letters, while the meaning of some words has been distorted or lost completely.

Vowels are the first victims.

Where other changes left the apostrophe as a substitute -- words such as can't and didn't, for example -- this revolution seems to take no prisoners.

There are times when we could use a court to help us arbitrate differences in language.

I understand that France has such a system that has been employed with mixed results.

France has had some good ideas that have worked their way across the Atlantic. This isn't one of them.

Americans are too mistrusting of their government for that. Besides, in the wrong hands it would be the source of much mischief.

The system we have works quite well.