> -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Brust [mailto:skzb at dreamcafe.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:40 PM > To: Chris Olson - SunPS; mike at plokta.com; dragaera at dragaera.info > Subject: Re: Subjectivity vs. Objectivity (was: bois...) > > But it is still a *weakening* of the language. > > Because something is inevitable does not make it good. I have seen a lot of posts today disparaging the tendency to change language, either in certain groups (gay/les/bi community, business) or general usage and slang. I am no expert in any of this and probably someone has already done a complete dissertation on it, but it occurred to me that this tendency to change the language has a huge social role. My comment about the army made me think of that. All of these groups have their "jargon" and I heard someone say "What's your MOS?" I would immediately know they were in the army (or military; I'm not familiar with how much cross-over there is in the jargon between branches). I think having one's own jargon serves a role in making a cohesive group. Don't people fight wars over what language should be spoken? I've very recently heard some vehement remarks from people whom I had thought were reasonable, mature adults over the "sin" of speaking Spanish in public places like Walmart! It's not so hard to imagine wars over how the language will be spoken. Maybe we object to "weakening" the language because inherent in the ambiguity is the fact that someone else is communicating perfectly clearly and it is possible that they are changing the language in order to exclude us, who are confused by the change. Just for the record, I'm a biology grad student and have spent the day dissecting mice, which profoundly impacts thought processes. That's my disclaimer. Rachel