Language evolves with the masses, if the majority of people think a word means something, that is what it will become regardless of any prior meaning.
Those who try to tie it down will only be left behind by the sands of time.
Language has evolved beyond the need for descriptivist evolution, universal literacy and global instantaneous communication networks require standardization, and eventually, a constructed universal language. Those trying to hold on to preindustrial modes of cultural development will only be left behind by the sands of time. That's why we already did all of that to weights and measures.
Standardisation works with weights and measures because the definition of those isn't meant to change ever... A kg should always be a kg, a km should always be a km, etc.
But while globalisation may have slowed them down, languages are still evolving - why do you think there are still words being added to the dictionaries each year?
You think the dictionaries just think up new words for themselves, or do you think that they're catching up on words that have entered the majorative lexicon?
Language is one of the few things that is still controlled by majority usage, because you can't really standardise normal, everyday use of language. So if you dig your heels into the ground trying to standardise existing language, you'll be the one left behind by the majority of language users - even the dictionaries know that.
Standardization doesn't mean completely static. Would you care to point out where I said that?
The idea of a strict language is largely a myth:
All living languages are continually undergoing change. Some commentators use derogatory labels such as "corruption" to suggest that language change constitutes a degradation in the quality of a language, especially when the change originates from human error or is a prescriptively discouraged usage. Modern linguistics rejects this concept, since from a scientific point of view such innovations cannot be judged in terms of good or bad.
Language evolves with the masses, if the majority of people think a word means something, that is what it will become regardless of any prior meaning.
Those who try to tie it down will only be left behind by the sands of time.
Language has evolved beyond the need for descriptivist evolution, universal literacy and global instantaneous communication networks require standardization, and eventually, a constructed universal language. Those trying to hold on to preindustrial modes of cultural development will only be left behind by the sands of time. That's why we already did all of that to weights and measures.
Standardisation works with weights and measures because the definition of those isn't meant to change ever... A kg should always be a kg, a km should always be a km, etc.
But while globalisation may have slowed them down, languages are still evolving - why do you think there are still words being added to the dictionaries each year?
You think the dictionaries just think up new words for themselves, or do you think that they're catching up on words that have entered the majorative lexicon?
Language is one of the few things that is still controlled by majority usage, because you can't really standardise normal, everyday use of language. So if you dig your heels into the ground trying to standardise existing language, you'll be the one left behind by the majority of language users - even the dictionaries know that.
Standardization doesn't mean completely static. Would you care to point out where I said that?
The idea of a strict language is largely a myth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_change
I always thought shit posting was low effort memes that only people in the very niche community would understand. Usually by misusing a meme template.
Touhou hijack
No, we're not "past the idea of strict language" people are often just too stupid to understand what their words actually mean.
Excellent example.